are mods disorganized or actively preserving harvesting

[FarangDemon]

I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques. Mods I've talked to are also in favor of fixing it, but leadership is obviously lacking. Lets discuss it..

where do you come up with these numbers? less than 3% off CC members even visit the forums, and that is a generous percentage! how do you know that close to 3/4 of the community want this changed/fixed? you are making up numbers that you simply can not back up!!! just as i asked you/challenged you to show me the "data" you claimed to have that showed teams win 60 out of 60 games on certain settings. if a 100% win percentage is possible, i have yet to see anyone master it. i just can't get on board with someone that continually makes up numbers, data, studies, research, etc... show me this 73% of the community, and please let me know how you contacted them. seriously, you can not assume that some vote in the forums is an overall indicator of how the community at large feels (i am assuming this proof you have is going to be some poll where less than 200 people voted for a change.. far from a majority on a site with over 20K members). i just don't believe half of what you say. you are a teacher, right? as my math teacher used to say to me, "show me your work". until then, you are making wild accusations without any sound evidence, other than your own mind, to back it all up... lack has taken a positive step in the correct direction, and i'm sure more will follow... the black jesus has spoken...-0

Ok, since Owenshooter did not bother to click on the link I provided for reference, I've copied this from the thread where I had originally posted it. But I would prefer not to clutter up threads with duplicated material, as posters should all be capable of reading the posts they wish to themselves opine on and clicking on links to find the appropriately referenced thread.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=75435&start=30

Ok only 40 people responded to my poll. But for a population of 20,000 people and a sample size of 40 people, the margin of error is 15.5%, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split. (when it is not actually evenly split, the margin of error is less)

Margin of Error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
Margin of Error Calculator: http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html

That means given the current 73% (for) to 27% (against) split, even at the extreme end of the margin of error, the outcome would still be 57.5% to 42.5% in favor of preventing someone from achieving conqueror status by farming. So the poll shows clear support for the measure among the CC community, despite the fact that only 40 of 20,000 people participated. That is statistics.

[FarangDemon]

Data has shown that they will win 60 out of 60 times, the results are the inflated scores you see on the scoreboard.

can you please post this data that you claim exists and has shown you that high ranked teams will win 60 out of 60 games? that is just an absurdly impossible statement. nothing is 100%, i simply don't believe that statement. the black jesus has spoken...-0

Look genius, I already provided the link. Everything is there. Please spend more time reading the posts that you troll instead of dropping 'black-jesus' quotes.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=75435&start=30

[owenshooter]

Look genius, I already provided the link. Everything is there. Spend more time reading the posts that you troll instead of dropping 'black-jesus' quotes.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=75435&start=30

nice attempted flame... stoop to name calling, it really elevates the discourse and shows what a uber-smart tough guy you are (wow... 4th grade insults)... anyway, you did not provide the list of 60 games in which he won 60 in a row. your sample is it.pies overall games!!! soooo, going and plucking out 60 games he has won and declaring it is 60 out of 60 is just not accurate. howeer, thanks for that link, here is someone else that disagrees with your flawed numbers and logic, and he makes some good points. guess it's time to send him to C&A!!

I've given it some more thought, in view of another discussion taking place in Announcements I've come to the opinion that this is not the approach to take. There are other, better ways of addressing the issue of farming. Here are two that show promise:

• Simple farming fix (By The Neon Peon)
• no points awarded (By JOHNNYROCKET24)

your numbers are not factual, your logic is flawed, and your demands upon lack are ridiculous. they are moving in the right direction and he has his site to worry about, not just what you think or if you are happy or not...-0

[Blitzaholic]

At least 50% of the top 50 do not farm or prey on noobs, I play a fair few of them regularly, as for those who do.....who cares ! Some people like to pitch their skill against the best,others get their rocks off by slowly increasing points ( which mean little in themselves ), at the end of the day we all have a pretty good idea who the solid players are and thats what really matters.

I agree with joecoolfrog

[FarangDemon]

Owen, seven minutes elapsed between the posting of my last post and your response. It probably took you a few minutes to write it. How much time did that leave you to actually read the posts that you are 'responding' to?

anyway, you did not provide the list of 60 games in which he won 60 in a row. your sample is it.pies overall games!!! soooo, going and plucking out 60 games he has won and declaring it is 60 out of 60 is just not accurate.

Did it give you long enough time to read this part?

I wanted to collect stats on low ranked teams playing high ranked ones on difficult map settings. I found it expedient to search on lt.pie's quads Waterloo games. This is not an attack on lt.pie, I just found it easier to restrict my data collection in this manner.

I counted that out of 60 games where he played against teams containing at least one cook and no opponent below lieutenant, he won all 60.

True, I did not list all 60 game numbers, but I did describe the parameters I used to generate my sampling. None of the other contributors to this suggestion thread requested all 60 game numbers, and I'm sure as heck not going to the trouble for an out and out troll such as yourself. Especially when you have shown that you are unable to click on one clearly provided link, let alone 60 links.

You are the first person who has challenged the veracity of the data in that thread (though you did it in the wrong thread). I think it is a result of you not reading the posts carefully enough, or at all. If you wish to continue your trolling, might I suggest you post to the original thread in Sugs and Bugs, that is if you have not been banned from there already.

The proof is in the pudding. You are a troll. You are not even bothering to read the suggestions before you begin to flame them. I will have to update my allegation with this example.

[owenshooter]

Owen, seven minutes elapsed between the posting of my last post and your response. It probably took you a few minutes to write it. How much time did that leave you to actually read the posts that you are 'responding' to?

anyway, you did not provide the list of 60 games in which he won 60 in a row. your sample is it.pies overall games!!! soooo, going and plucking out 60 games he has won and declaring it is 60 out of 60 is just not accurate.

Did it give you long enough time to read this part?

I wanted to collect stats on low ranked teams playing high ranked ones on difficult map settings. I found it expedient to search on lt.pie's quads Waterloo games. This is not an attack on lt.pie, I just found it easier to restrict my data collection in this manner.

I counted that out of 60 games where he played against teams containing at least one cook and no opponent below lieutenant, he won all 60.

True, I did not list all 60 game numbers, but I did describe the parameters I used to generate my sampling. None of the other contributors to this suggestion thread requested all 60 game numbers, and I'm sure as heck not going to the trouble for an out and out troll such as yourself. Especially when you have shown that you are unable to click on one clearly provided link, let alone 60 links.

You are the first person who has challenged the veracity of the data in that thread (though you did it in the wrong thread). I think it is a result of you not reading the posts carefully enough, or at all. If you wish to continue your trolling, might I suggest you post to the original thread in Sugs and Bugs, that is if you have not been banned from there already.

The proof is in the pudding. You are a troll. You are not even bothering to read the suggestions before you begin to flame them. I will have to update my allegation with this example.

point in case, 60 out 60 implies 60 straight victories in 60 straight games. NOT 60 games pulled from a game search of it.pie's games! you can not state his team wins 60 out of 60 games, 100% of games played, because it is simply not true. given your measure for what you consider sound samples, me and jbrettlip win 100 out of 100 games. it is just dishonest to make accusations that are this blatantly false, and then use them to back up your allegations. we won't even get into your CC majority consisting of 19 total votes... you are basing your arguments on bogus and created stats, which simply do not hold up if the person reading them is above a 6th grade reading comprehension...-0

[Incandenza]

Why calculate scores and give people meaningless ranks when we could give them ranks that are a better indicator of relative skill?

I'm perplexed that so many high ranked, competitive players can't understand this.

That's an excellent question. Speaking as someone who would directly benefit from some of your proposed changes, let me try and break it down for ya:

1. You inflate, obfuscate, and otherwise commit vile injustices against data. Let's start with this statement, which has been repeated by you quite often in recent days:

I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques.

First off, the 73% you cite comes from this thread, where indeed 73% of respondants voted yes to the poll. However, the poll question was this: "Have scoreboard display option to only show players who sometimes play peers (are not farmers)?" Not only is the question very vaguely worded, but it seems to me to imply that you are suggesting a different way to view/sort the scoreboard, rather than a full-blown revamp of the scoring system itself.

Furthermore, you extrapolate this 73% approval of an imprecisely-worded question about a topic seemingly different from your core contention across all of CC. As has been noted, there were 40 respondants to your poll. Statisticians have a term known as "small sample size", which would seem to be a perfect fit in this case. It seems disingenuous to map the opinions of a group of people that could fit comfortably in a schoolbus onto a population that would fill Madison Square Garden.

2. You claim that this isn't about you, when it clearly is about you. What you don't seem to understand is that, when someone makes a suggestion that would directly benefit him/her, people will naturally be suspicious.

3. You favor restricting the types of games that repeat customers can join. By suggesting that the map restrictions placed on new recruits be extended to cooks, you're trying to keep nearly 2000 repeat customers (many of them paying customers) from playing on roughly half of the maps on CC. You want to restrict these people from playing games because, in effect, you don't think they're good enough, all in the name of effecting "a just scoring system" that will really only affect page one of the scoreboard, if not just the top 100 or so.

4. You favor de facto rank segregation. If your suggestions were implemented, high ranks would stop playing low ranks immediately. Open team games would become a thing of the past. Even stripers wouldn't be able to get games against people over 2000 points, because they wouldn't fall within the 2/3rds threshold that's the centerpiece of your suggestion thread cited above.

5. You are uninterested in constructive criticism, instead defaming others like myself and owen as trolls. You even created a whole thread about owen. You don't seem to understand that people may disagree with you for reasons that have nothing to do with trolling or farming. Speaking only for myself, I disagree because I do not like restrictions on the types of games that people can play, I do not think that any scoring system can accurately convey the variety of game types available here, and I think that lack's time would be considerably better spent on other outstanding upgrades and features.

There's more, but that's about as much effort as I'm willing to expend.

FD, if I may make a suggestion, if you want to make a positive impact on CC, then there are far more rewarding and less inflammatory ways to do so. Mentor a cook or two. Visit the foundry and become a regular commenter. Volunteer for one of the many ad-hoc groups.

The fact is, you're clearly an excellent player and an intelligent bloke. But this crusade of yours makes you look shallow, petty, and manipulative of both people and data. I strongly suggest you set it aside, confident that you've made your point (many times over, in fact), and find another way to give back to this marvelous website.

In closing, I'd like to return to your quote that I put at the top of this post. The fact that so many highly-ranked, competitive players disagree with you should give you pause in your pursuit of this issue. In theory, players like myself, who don't farm and don't play freestyle, should be strongly in favor. That they aren't is an indication of how exactly you're going about this.

[Night Strike]

Well said Incandenza.

[owenshooter]

Why calculate scores and give people meaningless ranks when we could give them ranks that are a better indicator of relative skill?

I'm perplexed that so many high ranked, competitive players can't understand this.

That's an excellent question. Speaking as someone who would directly benefit from some of your proposed changes, let me try and break it down for ya:

1. You inflate, obfuscate, and otherwise commit vile injustices against data. Let's start with this statement, which has been repeated by you quite often in recent days:

I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques.

First off, the 73% you cite comes from this thread, where indeed 73% of respondants voted yes to the poll. However, the poll question was this: "Have scoreboard display option to only show players who sometimes play peers (are not farmers)?" Not only is the question very vaguely worded, but it seems to me to imply that you are suggesting a different way to view/sort the scoreboard, rather than a full-blown revamp of the scoring system itself.

Furthermore, you extrapolate this 73% approval of an imprecisely-worded question about a topic seemingly different from your core contention across all of CC. As has been noted, there were 40 respondants to your poll. Statisticians have a term known as "small sample size", which would seem to be a perfect fit in this case. It seems disingenuous to map the opinions of a group of people that could fit comfortably in a schoolbus onto a population that would fill Madison Square Garden.

2. You claim that this isn't about you, when it clearly is about you. What you don't seem to understand is that, when someone makes a suggestion that would directly benefit him/her, people will naturally be suspicious.

3. You favor restricting the types of games that repeat customers can join. By suggesting that the map restrictions placed on new recruits be extended to cooks, you're trying to keep nearly 2000 repeat customers (many of them paying customers) from playing on roughly half of the maps on CC. You want to restrict these people from playing games because, in effect, you don't think they're good enough, all in the name of effecting "a just scoring system" that will really only affect page one of the scoreboard, if not just the top 100 or so.

4. You favor de facto rank segregation. If your suggestions were implemented, high ranks would stop playing low ranks immediately. Open team games would become a thing of the past. Even stripers wouldn't be able to get games against people over 2000 points, because they wouldn't fall within the 2/3rds threshold that's the centerpiece of your suggestion thread cited above.

5. You are uninterested in constructive criticism, instead defaming others like myself and owen as trolls. You even created a whole thread about owen. You don't seem to understand that people may disagree with you for reasons that have nothing to do with trolling or farming. Speaking only for myself, I disagree because I do not like restrictions on the types of games that people can play, I do not think that any scoring system can accurately convey the variety of game types available here, and I think that lack's time would be considerably better spent on other outstanding upgrades and features.

There's more, but that's about as much effort as I'm willing to expend.

FD, if I may make a suggestion, if you want to make a positive impact on CC, then there are far more rewarding and less inflammatory ways to do so. Mentor a cook or two. Visit the foundry and become a regular commenter. Volunteer for one of the many ad-hoc groups.

The fact is, you're clearly an excellent player and an intelligent bloke. But this crusade of yours makes you look shallow, petty, and manipulative of both people and data. I strongly suggest you set it aside, confident that you've made your point (many times over, in fact), and find another way to give back to this marvelous website.

In closing, I'd like to return to your quote that I put at the top of this post. The fact that so many highly-ranked, competitive players disagree with you should give you pause in your pursuit of this issue. In theory, players like myself, who don't farm and don't play freestyle, should be strongly in favor. That they aren't is an indication of how exactly you're going about this.

i like the cut of your jib, and agree wholeheartedly. thank you for putting this all into such a neat and tidy little package that sumes this all up nicely. you are a true treasure to the community, mr. incandenza.. and i second NS's emoticon !! wonderful post in a very cluttered thread.-0

[chipv]

I wanted to collect stats on low ranked teams playing high ranked ones on difficult map settings. I found it expedient to search on lt.pie's quads Waterloo games. This is not an attack on lt.pie, I just found it easier to restrict my data collection in this manner.

I counted that out of 60 games where he played against teams containing at least one cook and no opponent below lieutenant, he won all 60. This indicates that higher ranked players, if they are able to target teams like this, will be able to gain risk-free points.
(This is not an allegation that he targeted/targets teams like this.)

I don't have the time to count every game by hand including people of x, y and z rank, but I think you would find that many maps currently restricted to new recruits would produce similar results.

I'm not getting into a full blown discussion but you are seriously damaging your own credibility by posting incorrect maths.

This one example can be contradicted trivially with Map Ranking lt.pie + quads + Waterloo.

Looking at the win/loss chart (NO missing logs so this is accurate) the maximum winning streak is 39, not 60. Therefore there cannot be a 60-0 win/loss vs anyone let alone cooks.
In addition even if you were to trawl through the games, there is no way of telling what rank the "cooks" you are referring to actually were when the game was finished even if it is most likely.

The problem also appears to be your complete lack of acceptance of your posts being challenged, so I may expect some sort of rebuttal, but , again, not interested in a full blown discussion - the point is that the mods are not as incompetent as you seem to suggest. Should you come up with a suggestion which has a good mathematical foundation to work on, then it will be taken seriously but so far this has not happened. Instead your frustration at not being taken seriously has yielded a number of posts virtually trolling any thread that goes near the point system.

Please take some time to carefully consider the maths and source of statistics in future before trying to manipulate the data. This is advice which you can take or leave.

[nagerous]

When I first joined this website, I was farmed instantly by joining a team game alongside 2 fellow deadbeats... since then vast improvements have been made to prevent farming, starting with new recruits not being allowed to join team games... I think the mods are doing a good job on this front and I cannot agree with the legitimacy of your grievances FarangDemon.

[Jeff Hardy]

When I first joined this website, I was farmed instantly by joining a team game alongside 2 fellow deadbeats

i think a large amount of us were...
Game 1816697

2008-03-08 21:24:53 - KLOBBER eliminated Jeff Hardy from the game
2008-03-08 21:57:20 - KLOBBER won the game
2008-03-08 21:57:20 - Jeff Hardy loses 12 points
2008-03-08 21:57:20 - KLOBBER gains 70 points

stuff like this doesnt happen any more which is a massive step

[AAFitz]

Game 2581817
Game 2285734
Game 3226295
Game 3002133
Game 2898168
Game 2977982

Dont get the wrong idea here, the majority of your games have great players in them...but I do see lots of games where a bunch of players joined first, that are clearly not in your skill category. Would this be considered farming, or are you just looking for a challenging game against some cooks and sergeants? Should the mods be looking for stuff like this?

What is your definition of noob farming, and from the looks of it, you dont seem too concerned about joining games, or even setting up big freestyle games, which typically attract lots of low ranks. Im of course not suggesting anything is wrong with this. Alot of these players are not great, but most have played some games, and most went on to stick around with the site. But I am wondering if youre trying to save these players from other players? I wouldnt think youd join against so many of them, if that were the case. I dont really care what you play, but It is interesting to see the game choices.

[joecoolfrog]

What happened to the 73% who apparently support Mr Demon

[MrBenn]

1. You inflate, obfuscate, and otherwise commit vile injustices against data. Let's start with this statement, which has been repeated by you quite often in recent days:

I'm just trying to bring home the point that 73% of the CC community want the system changed so that score is more an indicator of skill than harvesting techniques.

First off, the 73% you cite comes from this thread, where indeed 73% of respondants voted yes to the poll. However, the poll question was this: "Have scoreboard display option to only show players who sometimes play peers (are not farmers)?" Not only is the question very vaguely worded, but it seems to me to imply that you are suggesting a different way to view/sort the scoreboard, rather than a full-blown revamp of the scoring system itself.

Furthermore, you extrapolate this 73% approval of an imprecisely-worded question about a topic seemingly different from your core contention across all of CC. As has been noted, there were 40 respondants to your poll. Statisticians have a term known as "small sample size", which would seem to be a perfect fit in this case. It seems disingenuous to map the opinions of a group of people that could fit comfortably in a schoolbus onto a population that would fill Madison Square Garden.

I recently had the joy of attending a conference about statistical/survey sampling methods. To make a long story short, in order to be 95% confident that the margin of error are within +/-3%, you need 1063 responses to your survey.
Extrapolating the results of your survey indicates a confidence interval of +/- 15.48%; thus we can be 95% confident that between 57% and 89% of people are in agreement with whatever the vague question was asking.


To answer the question: Are mods disorganized or actively preserving harvesting?
a) I am relatively disorganised, but I tend to think of it as 'organised chaos'.
b) My vegetable patch is not very well preserved, but you're welcome to harvest what remains of the leeks and runner beans.
c) In order to avoid loaded questions, you'd be better off using mutually exclusive options.

[e_i_pi]

What happened to the 73% who apparently support Mr Demon

I'm part of that 73%. I'd rather not get my suit dirty though, what with all the jizz lobbing that's occurring in this thread

[Timminz]

What happened to the 73% who apparently support Mr Demon

I'm part of that 73%. I'd rather not get my suit dirty though, what with all the jizz lobbing that's occurring in this thread

I support the ideal, but not the way he's going about it. It's the same thing that happened with Porkenbeans. There are better ways to go about trying to make CC better.

[Mr Changsha]

What happened to the 73% who apparently support Mr Demon

I'm part of that 73%. I'd rather not get my suit dirty though, what with all the jizz lobbing that's occurring in this thread

I support the ideal, but not the way he's going about it. It's the same thing that happened with Porkenbeans. There are better ways to go about trying to make CC better.

We all know that seperate scoreboards are the answer to this problem; scoreboards that take into account singles and teams play, RR and win percentage as well. Assuming it is not retrospective, how hard is it to start some new scoreboards and gradually have our play reflected in those new scoreboards as well as keeping the overall points scoreboard?

Many of us cannot accept play being limited for lower ranks, whether that is because we are selfish point-hoarders or because we feel all ranks are entitled to the same service. Seperate scoreboards (and there are enough of us out here who know how they could be devised) would allow all ranks to keep playing as they want, the same scoring formula (which I like) to be kept and accusations of farming/harvesting to be banished once and for all.

Why can't this be done?

[e_i_pi]

What happened to the 73% who apparently support Mr Demon

I'm part of that 73%. I'd rather not get my suit dirty though, what with all the jizz lobbing that's occurring in this thread

I support the ideal, but not the way he's going about it. It's the same thing that happened with Porkenbeans. There are better ways to go about trying to make CC better.

We all know that seperate scoreboards are the answer to this problem; scoreboards that take into account singles and teams play, RR and win percentage as well. Assuming it is not retrospective, how hard is it to start some new scoreboards and gradually have our play reflected in those new scoreboards as well as keeping the overall points scoreboard?

Many of us cannot accept play being limited for lower ranks, whether that is because we are selfish point-hoarders or because we feel all ranks are entitled to the same service. Seperate scoreboards (and there are enough of us out here who know how they could be devised) would allow all ranks to keep playing as they want, the same scoring formula (which I like) to be kept and accusations of farming/harvesting to be banished once and for all.

Why can't this be done?

And to quote the 73%...

"They don't care or are incompetent"

[canadian bacon]

Why do you post 30 threads about the same subject, adding nothing new each time?

Fact: Farming has been reduced greatly since the new rule has been put in place.

Fact: King_Herpes, our conqueror that you seem to love to flame and insult constantly, has played very little low ranks since the rule came out. And the ones he has, have joined his 1v1 City Moguls, not him joining games against them.

Fact: The mods have warned everyone who has been accused of farming noobs.

Fact: You see noobs as everyone below a certain rank. Since this game is based on a large percentage of pure luck, that is often not the case. You see noobs where there are none.

Fact: This thread will turn into another thread that has flaming, because you refuse to listen to any logic, and you attack the "Mods that don't care", when they've done a lot, and tolerated a lot of shit from you, that they don't deserve.

are you kidding?
first there has been almost no change that i have seen in farming, i am STILL seeing blocks of higher ranks making a game in hopes they be able to thrash a pickup group of cooks. just look in the game joiner every game goes

lieu
major
major
gen
empty
empty
empty
empty

EVERY DAMN GAME

i cant speak for our "conquerer" but what i can say is if he uses ^ that strategy he is JUST as guilty as the others.

the mods may be warning people but it sure as hell dosent look like its working

i dont want to bother the mods, they have done more than mods in some games, im looking at you diabloII, but the fault lies squarely on the shoulders you cowardly higher ups. you dont want to play each other cause you run the risk of losing points, but HELLO isnt that the name of the game? STOP being pussies and actually play each other! youre just supporting a social cast that shouldnt exist! you know why i'm such a low rank? cause i actually play my people ABOVE my station insted of low level people that i know i could beat. it's more fun for me knowing i actually can loose.

[Timminz]

Mr. Bacon,

It appears that you could benefit from learning to use the "Game Finder" page, rather than the "Join A Game".

Sincerely,

Timminz

[King_Herpes]

are you kidding?
first there has been almost no change that i have seen in farming, i am STILL seeing blocks of higher ranks making a game in hopes they be able to thrash a pickup group of cooks. just look in the game joiner every game goes

lieu
major
major
gen
empty
empty
empty
empty

EVERY DAMN GAME

i cant speak for our "conquerer" but what i can say is if he uses ^ that strategy he is JUST as guilty as the others.

the mods may be warning people but it sure as hell dosent look like its working

i dont want to bother the mods, they have done more than mods in some games, im looking at you diabloII, but the fault lies squarely on the shoulders you cowardly higher ups. you dont want to play each other cause you run the risk of losing points, but HELLO isnt that the name of the game? STOP being pussies and actually play each other! youre just supporting a social cast that shouldnt exist! you know why i'm such a low rank? cause i actually play my people ABOVE my station insted of low level people that i know i could beat. it's more fun for me knowing i actually can loose.

I'm with this guy.

[Jeff Hardy]

are you kidding?
first there has been almost no change that i have seen in farming, i am STILL seeing blocks of higher ranks making a game in hopes they be able to thrash a pickup group of cooks. just look in the game joiner every game goes

lieu
major
major
gen
empty
empty
empty
empty

EVERY DAMN GAME

i cant speak for our "conquerer" but what i can say is if he uses ^ that strategy he is JUST as guilty as the others.

the mods may be warning people but it sure as hell dosent look like its working

i dont want to bother the mods, they have done more than mods in some games, im looking at you diabloII, but the fault lies squarely on the shoulders you cowardly higher ups. you dont want to play each other cause you run the risk of losing points, but HELLO isnt that the name of the game? STOP being pussies and actually play each other! youre just supporting a social cast that shouldnt exist! you know why i'm such a low rank? cause i actually play my people ABOVE my station insted of low level people that i know i could beat. it's more fun for me knowing i actually can loose.

I'm with this guy.

if you stop one type of farming youve got to stop the other types too

[thezepman]

Why do you post 30 threads about the same subject, adding nothing new each time?

Fact: Farming has been reduced greatly since the new rule has been put in place.

Fact: King_Herpes, our conqueror that you seem to love to flame and insult constantly, has played very little low ranks since the rule came out. And the ones he has, have joined his 1v1 City Moguls, not him joining games against them.

Fact: The mods have warned everyone who has been accused of farming noobs.

Fact: You see noobs as everyone below a certain rank. Since this game is based on a large percentage of pure luck, that is often not the case. You see noobs where there are none.

Fact: This thread will turn into another thread that has flaming, because you refuse to listen to any logic, and you attack the "Mods that don't care", when they've done a lot, and tolerated a lot of shit from you, that they don't deserve.

are you kidding?
first there has been almost no change that i have seen in farming, i am STILL seeing blocks of higher ranks making a game in hopes they be able to thrash a pickup group of cooks. just look in the game joiner every game goes

lieu
major
major
gen
empty
empty
empty
empty

EVERY DAMN GAME

i cant speak for our "conquerer" but what i can say is if he uses ^ that strategy he is JUST as guilty as the others.

the mods may be warning people but it sure as hell dosent look like its working

i dont want to bother the mods, they have done more than mods in some games, im looking at you diabloII, but the fault lies squarely on the shoulders you cowardly higher ups. you dont want to play each other cause you run the risk of losing points, but HELLO isnt that the name of the game? STOP being pussies and actually play each other! youre just supporting a social cast that shouldnt exist! you know why i'm such a low rank? cause i actually play my people ABOVE my station insted of low level people that i know i could beat. it's more fun for me knowing i actually can loose.

can i get an amen!

[alster]

Ok only 40 people responded to my poll. But for a population of 20,000 people and a sample size of 40 people, the margin of error is 15.5%, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split. (when it is not actually evenly split, the margin of error is less)

That means given the current 73% (for) to 27% (against) split, even at the extreme end of the margin of error, the outcome would still be 57.5% to 42.5% in favor of preventing someone from achieving conqueror status by farming. So the poll shows clear support for the measure among the CC community, despite the fact that only 40 of 20,000 people participated. That is statistics.

Indeed that is statistics. On the other hand there are indeed lies, damned lies, and statistics.