real bad results in c and a (case resolved.)

[MoB Deadly]

I am very curious to see eddies and cof's rebuttal to blitz's post. There are very few people who have REAL evidence to bring to the table.

I still believe he is innocent, his story seems to check out over and over again. Hes guilty of joining the few public games, that shouldn't have been joined until he was certain that jobi wasn't coming back. Letting jobi deadbeat in all his games besides the ones that effected blitz was immoral yes, but it certainly isnt against the rules.

I guess you guys assume he is lying about him not joining those tournament games for 3 weeks, making him point dump, but he stated it was leo joining those games not him. That makes this whole thing confusing as hell, because there were two sitters on the account. Why hasn't leo come out and made a report of the things he did?

Regardless its one persons' word against another. I don't see how much more evidence can be brought up at all. I forget the last confirmed date jobi posted in the forum and was last known fully active. Whichever date that was, its going to be up to the multihunters to find out how long after that was jobi "sporadically active", and how many turns did he really take on his own. If he indeed did not take any turns since the beginning to mid march you may have a different case. However, as blitz's side of the story starts near the end of march. That seems to be the biggest differences in the story, and thats very hard to prove whether or not he knew about it early march

[Chariot of Fire]

Blitzisms (all ad verbatim).

Is this a struggle to grasp reality or the truth? I felt compelled to bold my personal faves as they're just too funny.

I used to team with jobi sometimes back in the day

He finally did pm me when he returned to the states and said let's rock out, but may need some help and left me his pw

I did create some games, he did join some and I did join some for him

Do I continue to take some of his turns if I can? Do I let him miss his turns?

I am trying to do the right thing here, so asking for help on what to do in this situation?

I am not sure what you mean, I been busy with work last couple weeks and have not been on much

The warning of that was dealt with, I admitted to joining some games for him with his permission

it was an unfortunate mishap, the thread has been locked and dealt with, I am not sure what else you want me to say, I am not going to argue about this. The case is closed and the public can think what they want to

So, I did take some turns, in tourneys and team games, although I never joined any tourney games, he was doing that, showing me at least he was on at times

I took his turns, then I guess Eddie freaked out, so Leo took his turns from then on, not me

I had no idea he was missing some turns, I figured he took them after I went to work

I can't speak for Jobi, but, my guess is when he had time to get on, he took the turns he knew he had the best chance of winning, the others games where he had little to no chance of winning, he probably skipped those to save time

The only games we had were made between the 1st and 3rd week of March, none were made after this time

the whole thing is sad, I feel awful about the entire thing, and to some outsiders it probably looked bad, it was unfortunate

Trust me, there is many low ranks I could of teamed with. I was not trying to gain anything, he was a cook when our games started and still is a cook, but, no games were thrown and none of this was on purpose

Ask yourself, what would be my motive?

The answer is I just wanted to team with a partner (who I would consider a friend at least in the cyper internet world)

Again, I had no idea this was a big NO NO for cc to do, like I said, others had done this to me in my public games before and nothing happened. I realize two wrongs do not make a right.

I feel happy I told the truth and I feel relieved that I was investigated and justice was served fairly

You all have a right to carry on and share as you wish in here or in the forums, bash me or support me, at least show respect to Jobi and his loss, but, for me, this chapter is closed and I will not talk about it again as it is sad anytime anyone brings this up

I don't even remember his password. Has leo not been taking his turns in late March and early April til now?

the reason I don't remember his password, is because his password is not an easy one to remember

I was not convinced he was away, he was active as far as I knew, but looking back, it looks as if he was sporadic acitve

Again, I had no idea, yes, it does look bad, it is embarassing

I had NO idea he was ever an absentee until Maybe early April

I knew it may be frowned upon, but, I did not really think that was a big deal

I reported it to the multihunters and nothing happened, they let it go. So, how am I suppose to know?

I never advised the TO's, but, I never joined his tourney games. I had thought about making a public statement or at least pm'ing the mods, but, eddie posted it publicly before I could

I would never sell anyone down a river, and never for a few measly points as you shared, it makes no sense. It was all just unfortunate couple with unawareness

I forgive you all because some of you may not of known what you did

Well hallelujah, praise the Lord

[SirSebstar]

We are re-checking the case and re-evaluating what facts we have.

Just to clarify, for those of you who just want to complain or post that you agree with what your friends say or how awful the C&A mods are, keep it in this GD thread. If you have further evidence to show for the case, then you can post it in the C&A thread. Your feelings for the case is not evidence. There is just too much public trial in this case that everyone just want to post away anything they have in mind and it only adds more posts to read and more for us to distinguish the facts from people just posting how they are disappointed, mad or in agreement/disagreement with.

Thank you.

just posting it in the new page so everybody can see it.

[natty dread]

I've been staying out of this discussion so far because I don't really have an opinion on blitzaholic, one way or the other... if/when blitz is found guilty, he will be dealt a punishment like anyone else, that's all there is in my book.

However I do find it funny how many people I've now seen posting that they think the proper punishment would be for blitz to "stop promoting himself as the number one player". Or for blitz to be "kicked out of his clan". Or even, "made to stop creating top x players lists"... Funny, and telling...

I can certainly understand how people would get irked if someone who is consistently maintaining a #1 rank would act in a way they consider "arrogant". I can also understand people wanting someone who abuses the system to be punished. But I've seen several instances where it's obvious that these two concepts are being mixed up... there are some who seem to legitimately want a fair punishment for a crime committed, but there seems to also be a lot of those who just want to see blitzaholic "humbled" and "taken down a peg".

People's personal opinions about blitz and his behaviour should not be a factor in deciding a punishment. If he was the nicest person on earth, the punishment should be the same as if he was a total jerkass. Asking for punishments like "make him stop promoting himself on the forums all the time" smells more like vengeance & sour grapes than a legitimate desire for justice. If he has character failings that you can't stand, you can foe him, but those failings do not count as reasons to punish someone more harshly.

Anyway, I'm sure the admin & multihunters will take every relevant aspect of this case in account and will come up with a fair punishment. I'm also sure that there are those who will not be satisfied with whatever that punishment is, and will tell us all about it, and the drama will continue...

[greenoaks]

However I do find it funny how many people I've now seen posting that they think the proper punishment would be for blitz to "stop promoting himself as the number one player". Or for blitz to be "kicked out of his clan". Or even, "made to stop creating top x players lists"... Funny, and telling...

i haven't seen anyone suggest the last one but there was a usually quite humorous chap pointing out that if found guilty, Blitz would have to remove himself from all of his top 5's.

[gannable]

However I do find it funny how many people I've now seen posting that they think the proper punishment would be for blitz to "stop promoting himself as the number one player". Or for blitz to be "kicked out of his clan". Or even, "made to stop creating top x players lists"... Funny, and telling...

i haven't seen anyone suggest the last one but there was a usually quite humorous chap pointing out that if found guilty, Blitz would have to remove himself from all of his top 5's.

LOL best punishment of all

[eddie2]

I am very curious to see eddies and cof's rebuttal to blitz's post. There are very few people who have REAL evidence to bring to the table.

there is no need for me to break down his last post due to the fact half 9of what he says can be counteracted with previous info we have supplied. as for the rest of blitzs post it had nothing to do with the case it was just him trying to pass the buck onto other players he feels have done the same. If he felt that strongly about it he should of reported it if i had seen it i would of but half the things he was talking about was before my time on cc or the forums.

[lokisgal]

I've been staying out of this discussion so far because I don't really have an opinion on blitzaholic, one way or the other... if/when blitz is found guilty, he will be dealt a punishment like anyone else, that's all there is in my book.

However I do find it funny how many people I've now seen posting that they think the proper punishment would be for blitz to "stop promoting himself as the number one player". Or for blitz to be "kicked out of his clan". Or even, "made to stop creating top x players lists"... Funny, and telling...

I can certainly understand how people would get irked if someone who is consistently maintaining a #1 rank would act in a way they consider "arrogant". I can also understand people wanting someone who abuses the system to be punished. But I've seen several instances where it's obvious that these two concepts are being mixed up... there are some who seem to legitimately want a fair punishment for a crime committed, but there seems to also be a lot of those who just want to see blitzaholic "humbled" and "taken down a peg".

People's personal opinions about blitz and his behaviour should not be a factor in deciding a punishment. If he was the nicest person on earth, the punishment should be the same as if he was a total jerkass. Asking for punishments like "make him stop promoting himself on the forums all the time" smells more like vengeance & sour grapes than a legitimate desire for justice. If he has character failings that you can't stand, you can foe him, but those failings do not count as reasons to punish someone more harshly.

I think the point is Blitz himself has exerted a huge amount of effort to attempt to position himself and to make himself appear above everyone else on the site in many many many ways(in his own mind. If you want to hold yourself above people then you have to remain squeaky clean . When you claim to be better then everyone else in so many ways (see 10 ten threads and so on) then you had better keep a clean nose as well. To sum it up - dont shit where you eat

[Johnny Rockets]

Blitz can rant and rave all he likes about how fantastic he is. I don't have an emotional investment in someone that has to prove to me ( and thus himself...) how "great" he is.
Besides, the man can, without a shadow of a doubt, play a good game of risk.


Why I'm so interested in this issue, is that IF he is guilty, he has tarnished the integrity of the Community, and of the site itself. I don't want the sites reputation to suffer because skill and rank get diluted because of cheating, and I don't wish to be thought of a part of a community that has no standard of ethics because you can act how you choose and flaunt the rules with impunity.

When you are Conqueror, or Prime minister, or the President, your actions get put under the microscope a little more than some multi-cook.

This does not mean the punishment should be any harsher, but a point reset at least and that it be brought to the Community’s attention that this persons hands are no longer clean.

Whatever impact on his reputation will be the true punishment, especially for someone who takes great pride in his accomplishments and lets it be known often, and in a public forum.


Johnny Rockets.

[natty dread]

I think the point is Blitz himself has exerted a huge amount of effort to attempt to position himself and to make himself appear above everyone else on the site in many many many ways(in his own mind. If you want to hold yourself above people then you have to remain squeaky clean . When you claim to be better then everyone else in so many ways (see 10 ten threads and so on) then you had better keep a clean nose as well. To sum it up - dont shit where you eat

So, are you saying that the way someone acts on the forums should affect the way he is punished for a gameplay abuse?

[eddie2]

i dont care about what is said in the forums or what clan the person is in. All i want is that if blitz is guilty of abusing jobiwans account he get a proper punishment for it. remember blitz is conquerer so should be setting a good example to others of this site. If he gets off with a warning for this (if found guilty) then that leads the way for others to think it is ok to do. because they will only get warned. It will also make it harder to get sitters for your account because you wont know who to trust.

[lord voldemort]

i dont care about what is said in the forums or what clan the person is in. All i want is that if blitz is guilty of abusing jobiwans account he get a proper punishment for it. remember blitz is conquerer so should be setting a good example to others of this site. If he gets off with a warning for this (if found guilty) then that leads the way for others to think it is ok to do. because they will only get warned. It will also make it harder to get sitters for your account because you wont know who to trust.

well that comes down to the escalating ban system this site uses.
If it was his first major infraction then all it should deserve is a warning.
The only time this is deviated from is those rare cases when someone has gone tooo far. And brough the game into serious disrepute.
QOTD...does this fall into that bracket. We already know he is guilty of wrong doing from the original warning he received.

[eddie2]

i dont care about what is said in the forums or what clan the person is in. All i want is that if blitz is guilty of abusing jobiwans account he get a proper punishment for it. remember blitz is conquerer so should be setting a good example to others of this site. If he gets off with a warning for this (if found guilty) then that leads the way for others to think it is ok to do. because they will only get warned. It will also make it harder to get sitters for your account because you wont know who to trust.

well that comes down to the escalating ban system this site uses.
If it was his first major infraction then all it should deserve is a warning.
The only time this is deviated from is those rare cases when someone has gone tooo far. And brough the game into serious disrepute.
QOTD...does this fall into that bracket. We already know he is guilty of wrong doing from the original warning he received.

yep it depends how serious it actually is on another note after reading this

Lord Voldemort, please take your discussion about non-evidence to the GD topic, if you kindly could.

The Admins and the Multi Hunters are conferring today.


--Andy

a member of his clan starts dumping major points. could this be another version of herkman v jle...............

[jefjef]

When you are Conqueror, or Prime minister, or the President, your actions get put under the microscope a little more than some multi-cook.

This does not mean the punishment should be any harsher, but a point reset at least and that it be brought to the Community’s attention that this persons hands are no longer clean.

Whatever impact on his reputation will be the true punishment, especially for someone who takes great pride in his accomplishments and lets it be known often, and in a public forum.

You do realize this is an internet game site and not rl. Right?

This lynch mob mentality reflects poorly upon the community many of you are so concerned about.

The ONLY accusation, that if he is found guilty of, that would justify a point reset is the INTENTIONAL points dumping of Jobi's account. If you look at it thru unbiased eyes the evidence does NOT support a determination of guilt. Intent, which is what it boils down to, is not evident.

The warning, for Blitz joining public games, was correct and in line with the established punishment guideline. But to cry for his head solely because he is conqueror and publicly takes pride in his CC accomplishments is ludicrous and reflects poorly on the community.

Get over it.

[josko.ri]

If he gets off with a warning for this (if found guilty) then that leads the way for others to think it is ok to do. because they will only get warned.

totally disagree, if he get warning, how then others can think it is ok? warning is given because of doing something what is not ok, true?

if he gets nothing, then your statement is true because only then others may think it is ok to do, but warning punishment shows that he made mistake, and get proper punishment for the mistake, which is purpose of warning (for the first time rule breaking).

getting cleared and getting warned are 2 different punishments, you should understand that. only if he gets cleared then others can think it is ok to do.

[Bones2484]

If he gets off with a warning for this (if found guilty) then that leads the way for others to think it is ok to do. because they will only get warned.

totally disagree, if he get warning, how then others can think it is ok? warning is given because of doing something what is not ok, true?

if he gets nothing, then your statement is true because only then others may think it is ok to do, but warning punishment shows that he made mistake, and get proper punishment for the mistake, which is purpose of warning (for the first time rule breaking).

getting cleared and getting warned are 2 different punishments, you should understand that. only if he gets cleared then others can think it is ok to do.

One of the most logical posts josko has ever made. Completely agree.

[Dako]

I think the whole system "first infraction - warning only" is a bad system. If you look at real world laws there is no such thing as first infraction. Each guilt has its own punishment. Yes, it can be lowered in time or some other instance, but not on a constant basis.

[Bones2484]

I think the whole system "first infraction - warning only" is a bad system. If you look at real world laws there is no such thing as first infraction. Each guilt has its own punishment. Yes, it can be lowered in time or some other instance, but not on a constant basis.

Sadly I dont think we have the ability to debate the "first intraction" rule in regards to Blitz because this is how the site is currently set up. Sure the penalty system here is horrible, but sadly it's what is being ruled against.

Another thread to debate the escalating system in the suggestions forum would probably be a better place for that discussion (I'm sure a thread already exists there on the subject).

[Dako]

No, not towards blitz of course. For the future. And I think suggestions are more for the site features, not the site processes.

[SirSebstar]

I think the whole system "first infraction - warning only" is a bad system. If you look at real world laws there is no such thing as first infraction. Each guilt has its own punishment. Yes, it can be lowered in time or some other instance, but not on a constant basis.

actually yes there is. I do not know what laws you have but here we have laws that can up the penalty if you are a repeat offender. And many a first time offender on e.g. a burglery can do community service instead of a prison snetance. So yea, the penalty needs to fit the person and the crime..
a 500 dollar fine to bill gates is nothing, a 20 year jail penalty to bill gates for jay walking is idiotic

[Stegura]

I think the whole system "first infraction - warning only" is a bad system. If you look at real world laws there is no such thing as first infraction. Each guilt has its own punishment. Yes, it can be lowered in time or some other instance, but not on a constant basis.

actually yes there is. I do not know what laws you have but here we have laws that can up the penalty if you are a repeat offender. And many a first time offender on e.g. a burglery can do community service instead of a prison snetance. So yea, the penalty needs to fit the person and the crime..
a 500 dollar fine to bill gates is nothing, a 20 year jail penalty to bill gates for jay walking is idiotic

(Kind of going off topic)

I know there are some european countries who give traffic fines according to wealth (or income) of the violator. It kinda makes sense, but I have a hard time thinking it's a good system.

Someone should get fined more (for doing the same thing!) just because they earn more in a year?

But yeah, it does help discourage the spirit of "I have enough money, I can do what I want!"

[Robinette]

Regrettably, I feel I must retract my statement made earlier in support of the mods...
I was trying ever so hard to overlook the appearance of bias, and to encourage the feeling of fairness..
But it has just gone too far.

Sadly, this sort of thing is ill serving to all... it clearly taints the perception of fairness, regardless of reality. Even a moderate penalty will be presumed to have been unfair if the perception is that of the judges trying hard to cast a light sentence... Again, this may not be reality, but such displays of bias by the mods, whether intentional or not, fuel such PERCEPTIONS.

To what do I refer?

The c&a thread is locked for what would appear to most to be eye84free protecting blitz.

Andy gives a cool down announcement, and asks for discussion to be in this GD thread.

eye84free issues a general warning to all that anyone who tries to continually troll or bait in the C&A thread will again result in having the thread locked again. "If you just want to say something funny or irrelevant or bait blitz some more, you can always go to the GD thread instead. C&A forum is more strict than the GD forum."

Now mind you, I never agreed that the thread should have been locked in the 1st place, and it truly did look like favoritism to blitz when that happened... however, in trying to do my part to keep things civil, this is where i threw out my "Very professionally done..." post

Then Neph throws out a series of ?'s that does not add anything, but instead proclaims this to be a kangaroo court.

Fruitcake complains about the partisan nature of many posts supporting blitz were let alone by the mods, a setiment that i would agree with bytheway.

sunshining screams that Everybody is screaming, and to "Let the mods figur it out and let this rest for nowe."

eye84free then returns to say "Ok as it stands now I see some people arent heeding the warning. I will say this, unless it is evidence to support or not support the issue at hand, please dont bother posting...."

ljex responds to Nephs post with some basic logic and ends with the hope that blitz is found innocent.

jackal31 takes this where it should not have gone, complaining of a mob lynching, ego bashing, and complaining that blitz gets tore apart whenever he makes a statement, and generally defending his innocence.

and after all that... lord voldemort quotes eye84free's warning to keep the posts relevant, and states he believes instead of locking the thread, it is the individual offenders that should be dealt with...

to which Andy asks Lord Voldemort to take his discussion about non-evidence to the GD topic



singling out a single post as being non evidence, when multiple posts before it were far more off topic and at the same time more supportive of blitz, creates the look of favoritism...

In summary...
PERCEPTION OF BIAS WILL TAINT YOUR RESULT...
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, BE SMART AND STAY ABOVE REPROACH.
AND IF THERE REALLY IS A MOD BIAS FOR BLITZ, DO IT SECRETLY.. NOT IN THE OPEN

[natty dread]

I think the whole system "first infraction - warning only" is a bad system. If you look at real world laws there is no such thing as first infraction.

In my country, first-time offenders don't have to go to jail for less severe crimes, even if they get a jail sentence.

[Victor Sullivan]

No, not towards blitz of course. For the future. And I think suggestions are more for the site features, not the site processes.

king achilles told me otherwise

[safariguy5]

I think the whole system "first infraction - warning only" is a bad system. If you look at real world laws there is no such thing as first infraction. Each guilt has its own punishment. Yes, it can be lowered in time or some other instance, but not on a constant basis.

Sadly I dont think we have the ability to debate the "first intraction" rule in regards to Blitz because this is how the site is currently set up. Sure the penalty system here is horrible, but sadly it's what is being ruled against.

Another thread to debate the escalating system in the suggestions forum would probably be a better place for that discussion (I'm sure a thread already exists there on the subject).

Completely agree on both counts. As has been mentioned before, I think that it's ridiculous that several different infractions are punished the same way. Forum flaming and secret diplomacy are the same thing? How do things you post on the forum have any relevance to how you play the game? I think the most good that can come out of this case is a revision of the escalating punishment system. A good clear system with tiers of offenses and appropriate punishments for each different type along with repeat offender guidelines would be much more beneficial to the site and the C&A process.