A Rethink of the Farming Rules

[Symmetry]

The rules on farming are obsolete

Concise description:

• Players and moderators disagree with the current interpretation of the rules on farming

Specifics/Details:

• http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=157218

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Now here we have a case where virtually everyone in the community, from mod to average Joe, sees that someone is, at best, not playing fair, and at worst cheating.
  
  Understandably, even the mods are a bit uncomfortable with this one- nobody likes to have to enforce a rule so bizarre that the best argument for it is "that's how we did it before".
  
  So let's make this suggestion a little clearer- rethink the rules on this one- either define them more specifically in the wording, or allow a bit of interpretation for cases like this.

[Army of GOD]

I think the basic rule is that farming at the very least only refers to the taking advantage of ?s.

[Metsfanmax]

I think the basic rule is that farming at the very least only refers to the taking advantage of ?s.

The bottom line is that farming is defined as taking advantage of New Recruits. This is bad for the site specifically because NRs are not familiar with site and game mechanics and may be taken advantage of simply because they are too new. But, perhaps there should be a separate rule for intentionally taking advantage of someone who is not necessarily brand new but is simply not nearly as skilled.

[jgordon1111]

Take the Banner down AoG

[Gold Knight]

Take the Banner down AoG

Thats a totally different suggestion...

And I completely agree, there have been several cases along with this one that are clear cases of farming while they may not be "New Recruits". Its pretty clear cut, and there is a difference between playing not-so-skilled players and players that have no clue whats going on. This case and many other land in the former and it's about time something is done, as not only will it balance the scoreboard somewhat but also lead to longer lasting member joining the site.

[Symmetry]

I think the basic rule is that farming at the very least only refers to the taking advantage of ?s.

The bottom line is that farming is defined as taking advantage of New Recruits. This is bad for the site specifically because NRs are not familiar with site and game mechanics and may be taken advantage of simply because they are too new. But, perhaps there should be a separate rule for intentionally taking advantage of someone who is not necessarily brand new but is simply not nearly as skilled.

Indeed, as and AoG also said, the New Recruits are defined as players with a "?" as their sign. That's too narrow in my mind, and that's why I suggest a rethink.

[IcePack]

Why not extend the new recruit phase til like first 25 games or sarg (or some other further point in CC career), or whichever comes first. Allows them for more time to get used to the site and isn't ridiculous 5 games that go and they still dont know anything. Keeps peoples paws off them until at least a little bit later.

IcePack

[Army of GOD]

There's gonna be a great deal of disagreement I think if we decide to change the rules. But whatever the end result, it should be based on subjective reasoning as little as possible. There should be empirical standards as to what farming is and isn't (games per time period, average (or highest) rank in these games, etc.

[Symmetry]

Take the Banner down AoG

Thats a totally different suggestion...

And I completely agree, there have been several cases along with this one that are clear cases of farming while they may not be "New Recruits". Its pretty clear cut, and there is a difference between playing not-so-skilled players and players that have no clue whats going on. This case and many other land in the former and it's about time something is done, as not only will it balance the scoreboard somewhat but also lead to longer lasting member joining the site.

Cheers for the support. One of the weirdest things about this is how uncomfortable everyone is about this. It's not just a few posters, or a few mods- nobody really likes it. Pretty much the strongest objection to it has been Gordy's, and even he seems to be trolling AoG (to be fair, who isn't?) more than talking about the point.

Basically, this is a weird rule, pretty much universally accepted as such.

So anwyay- ideas on fixing it? My personal suggestion would be upping the standard for the rules by about ten games minimum. I'd prefer more, but simply having newbie protection for your first few cycles of games as you try the new maps and settings leaves you less open to predators. This isn't my own suggestion, but better limits on maps and settings for new players might be a decent way of preventing this.

[WILLIAMS5232]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

this would take away the need for an exact set of rules to determine what is and isn't farming. i think most people can agree on what is and isn't.
and to make it even more favorable to the innocent, don't be so strict on the first and second offenses. have it layered to only affect the most abusive cases the worst. meaning that you have to just do it without regard for any type of general consensus over and over before serious consequences are enforced.

[Symmetry]

Why not extend the new recruit phase til like first 25 games or sarg (or some other further point in CC career), or whichever comes first. Allows them for more time to get used to the site and isn't ridiculous 5 games that go and they still dont know anything. Keeps peoples paws off them until at least a little bit later.

IcePack

I pretty much agree with that, although maybe certain types of games should have more weight than others. But yeah- after five games you really shouldn't be prey for high ranking players who don't care if you come back.

[Metsfanmax]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

This is exactly the opposite of what we want. The goal here is to create a rule that minimizes the amount of cases the C&A team has to deal with.

[Symmetry]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

This is exactly the opposite of what we want. The goal here is to create a rule that minimizes the amount of cases the C&A team has to deal with.

Probably the best path to that is clearer wording, though.

[Metsfanmax]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

This is exactly the opposite of what we want. The goal here is to create a rule that minimizes the amount of cases the C&A team has to deal with.

Probably the best path to that is clearer wording, though.

The current rules are clear, and there are a whole host of C&A cases to use as precedent. I've been personally shocked at some of the things people have done and gotten away with, because the high ranked players know exactly what they can get away with.

[WILLIAMS5232]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

This is exactly the opposite of what we want. The goal here is to create a rule that minimizes the amount of cases the C&A team has to deal with.

well... then i imagine you will be forever bogged down trying to come up with a method that will not be easy to circumvent. if humans can fly to the moon, then i'm sure they can figure out a way around a few CC rules.

[Gold Knight]

the best way would probably be a judgment call. like a "jury of peers".
if you could have some sort of board that would review these cases and come to a unanimous decision on each particular case.
of course you would need fair, unbiased people to look at these cases. i think they could be appointed, and removed with enough support from the peanut gallery.

This is exactly the opposite of what we want. The goal here is to create a rule that minimizes the amount of cases the C&A team has to deal with.

Why? Isnt their job to investigate the cases, and perhaps even put a little work in? I realize they do put effort into their cases, but this has been and continues to be one of the driving issues this site has dealt with over the years. It deserves to be looked into more closely than a mutliple account case where it can simply be IP addresses and playing times. Im not so sure about a "jury of peers", but it surely wouldnt be out of the question to have the MH's come together and discuss the more controversial cases such that have happened in previous cases. I would be completely fine leaving these decisions in the hands of KA, ES, KRK, and others of the MH team to at least give a little more depth and thought in their decisions than a clear cut "If its not ?'s, its not farming".

Otherwise, we might as well program automated MH's to look over cases if we arent going to put the member's perspectives into the cases. Obviously this and other examples raised are clearly seen as abuse among the public, yet we have to sit around and watch others abuse the scoring system at the expense of less-skilled players that are more than likely trying to enjoy themselves. And with a more subjective view, it will hopefully repel offenders as it doesnt allow them to bend around the rules if there is nothing set in stone. For every set of rules that CC sets up, there are a set of users that go as close as they can to breaking them without crossing that line. How aabout erasing that line so we dont have those situations. Seeing as abusers get away with these kinds of actions on a regular basis, I would rather be upset with a couple of rulings and have a few people busted for obvious abuse than continue to let all of these players go scott-free.

[Metsfanmax]

Why? Isnt their job to investigate the cases, and perhaps even put a little work in? I realize they do put effort into their cases, but this has been and continues to be one of the driving issues this site has dealt with over the years. It deserves to be looked into more closely than a mutliple account case where it can simply be IP addresses and playing times. Im not so sure about a "jury of peers", but it surely wouldnt be out of the question to have the MH's come together and discuss the more controversial cases such that have happened in previous cases. I would be completely fine leaving these decisions in the hands of KA, ES, KRK, and others of the MH team to at least give a little more depth and thought in their decisions than a clear cut "If its not ?'s, its not farming".

The MHs do a lot of work. C&A cases are just one small part of it. In cases where it is not clear what to do, the staff often do discuss the options with each other before coming to a decision. But in cases where there is more clear-cut abuse, it is undesirable to create added work by going through the formalities of the trial by jury suggestion.

Otherwise, we might as well program automated MH's to look over cases if we arent going to put the member's perspectives into the cases. Obviously this and other examples raised are clearly seen as abuse among the public, yet we have to sit around and watch others abuse the scoring system at the expense of less-skilled players that are more than likely trying to enjoy themselves. And with a more subjective view, it will hopefully repel offenders as it doesnt allow them to bend around the rules if there is nothing set in stone. For every set of rules that CC sets up, there are a set of users that go as close as they can to breaking them without crossing that line. How aabout erasing that line so we dont have those situations. Seeing as abusers get away with these kinds of actions on a regular basis, I would rather be upset with a couple of rulings and have a few people busted for obvious abuse than continue to let all of these players go scott-free.

I'd much rather have a small minority of users that intentionally take advantage of details in the rules of the system than a large class of users who take advantage of newer users in perhaps less blatant style but with pretty much no way to penalize them. Plus, the system you mentioned is rather unfair to the accused, because that sort of subjectivity means that people who do similar things in similar circumstances might receive different results.

[Symmetry]

Why? Isnt their job to investigate the cases, and perhaps even put a little work in? I realize they do put effort into their cases, but this has been and continues to be one of the driving issues this site has dealt with over the years. It deserves to be looked into more closely than a mutliple account case where it can simply be IP addresses and playing times. Im not so sure about a "jury of peers", but it surely wouldnt be out of the question to have the MH's come together and discuss the more controversial cases such that have happened in previous cases. I would be completely fine leaving these decisions in the hands of KA, ES, KRK, and others of the MH team to at least give a little more depth and thought in their decisions than a clear cut "If its not ?'s, its not farming".

The MHs do a lot of work. C&A cases are just one small part of it. In cases where it is not clear what to do, the staff often do discuss the options with each other before coming to a decision. But in cases where there is more clear-cut abuse, it is undesirable to create added work by going through the formalities of the trial by jury suggestion.

Otherwise, we might as well program automated MH's to look over cases if we arent going to put the member's perspectives into the cases. Obviously this and other examples raised are clearly seen as abuse among the public, yet we have to sit around and watch others abuse the scoring system at the expense of less-skilled players that are more than likely trying to enjoy themselves. And with a more subjective view, it will hopefully repel offenders as it doesnt allow them to bend around the rules if there is nothing set in stone. For every set of rules that CC sets up, there are a set of users that go as close as they can to breaking them without crossing that line. How aabout erasing that line so we dont have those situations. Seeing as abusers get away with these kinds of actions on a regular basis, I would rather be upset with a couple of rulings and have a few people busted for obvious abuse than continue to let all of these players go scott-free.

I'd much rather have a small minority of users that intentionally take advantage of details in the rules of the system than a large class of users who take advantage of newer users in perhaps less blatant style but with pretty much no way to penalize them. Plus, the system you mentioned is rather unfair to the accused, because that sort of subjectivity means that people who do similar things in similar circumstances might receive different results.

I'd also add that there are plenty of posters who put in time on the cheating and abuse threads looking for evidence, or clearing people when there's no evidence. I do so from time to time, JGordon puts in his dues, and I respect him for it even while he and I disagree. I think this is kind of an interesting issue because virtually nobody thinks it's the right way to go about things.

[TheForgivenOne]

What most people don't tend to think of, is that, really no matter what we, as mods do(Mainly the Multi hunters, but you can include other mods based on other aspects of the sites), no matter how we handle a case, someone, or a group of people are going to dislike the outcome of it. There really tends to be no way the mods can get a win win where everyone is happy. You also have to think of the consequences if we were to change the Farming rule, such as more cases of those quad's games being reported where Colonel teams are playing a bunch of cooks/cadets.

I, personally, would like to see this rule changed up a bit, AND have the New Recruit stage changed. I liked Queen Herpes idea of increasing the New Recruit stage to 15/20 games. But I didn't like the unlocking of maps. What I think needs to be done, from my personal point of view, and my point of view as a mod, is that we need to mesh, basically, a change in the farming rules with a change in the New Recruit stage. Have a bunch of veterans from the site, who have been here a long time and seen the site change as a whole, seen the up's and downs of thing's that have happened, which a new user wouldn't know has happened, and some or all of the mods, sit down (aka, have discussions in a forum), as to how we can change this part of the site to make the New Recruit/New player stage a lot easier for everyone. I'm not saying some of the newer players idea's shouldn't be considered, but having too many POV's can make things overcomplicated at times. I'd really like to see a PM sent out to new player's, who have either just joined the site, or finished the NR stage, explaining types of maps and things to expect, like Auto Deploys, Win/Lose Conditions, and explaining the types of games, mainly Freestyle. As a Chat Mod, it's actually surprising how many user's come into LC and ask how someone was playing at the same time. To make this suggestion as helpful as possible, I believe a few other suggestions need to be brought in as well.

[Gold Knight]

The MHs do a lot of work. C&A cases are just one small part of it. In cases where it is not clear what to do, the staff often do discuss the options with each other before coming to a decision. But in cases where there is more clear-cut abuse, it is undesirable to create added work by going through the formalities of the trial by jury suggestion

The cases Im stating are clear-cut abuse, and nothing is being done about them. I am a player that could care less about my score, but it still gets on my nerves to see a player knowing exactly what he is doing and knowing he willl get away with it. I stated and realize the work MHs put into this site, and I appreciate it, but is it not the duty they signed up for? Why not step up the enforcement on important aspects such as this(and leave the trolling/ratings abuse garbage to the regular routine) and further improve the site? This is why members are getting upset in general, because the site is not taking the little steps neccessary to make the games and site better. This is not a trial by jury, its a trial by carefully selected members(comparable to the Supreme Court). Hell, if we have to elect them to gain our approval to make these decisions, lets setup a vote. I just want some sort of common sense in the ruling rather than a clear-cut "here's what's right, here's what's wrong". There is simply too much room for interpretation, which for some reason our MH's are not allowed to interpret...

Otherwise, we might as well program automated MH's to look over cases if we arent going to put the member's perspectives into the cases. Obviously this and other examples raised are clearly seen as abuse among the public, yet we have to sit around and watch others abuse the scoring system at the expense of less-skilled players that are more than likely trying to enjoy themselves. And with a more subjective view, it will hopefully repel offenders as it doesnt allow them to bend around the rules if there is nothing set in stone. For every set of rules that CC sets up, there are a set of users that go as close as they can to breaking them without crossing that line. How aabout erasing that line so we dont have those situations. Seeing as abusers get away with these kinds of actions on a regular basis, I would rather be upset with a couple of rulings and have a few people busted for obvious abuse than continue to let all of these players go scott-free.

I'd much rather have a small minority of users that intentionally take advantage of details in the rules of the system than a large class of users who take advantage of newer users in perhaps less blatant style but with pretty much no way to penalize them. Plus, the system you mentioned is rather unfair to the accused, because that sort of subjectivity means that people who do similar things in similar circumstances might receive different results.[/quote]

In no way do I see anything in my suggestion that would all of a sudden make the majority of users take advantage of the scoring system. There is still the escalating punishment system in place, so those who truly did not understand the severity of setting up games that bait lower ranked players would not be instantly tossed from the site. But the majority of users that use these tactics realize EXACTLY what theyre doing, I personally guarantee it. If I wanted to raise my rank substantially in a few days, there have been enough examples of cheating that line that I know I could do it and completely get away with it, likely at the dissatisfaction of others trying to enjoy themselves.

There's a topic in GD regarding "Is CC declining?" that brings up these exact topics, and should mention how concrete rules just create new ways to take advantage of the current system. I agree there should be the set-in-stone rules of no multis, no farming NRs, etc. But there needs to be some way to punish the obvious "gross abuses" that the public sees on a regular basis, instead of throwing up our hands and saying its not on the rule page.

Im just trying to contribute to a Suggestion forum that is losing credibility in the eyes of the public on a regular basis, as we can see with "The Big One" . Obviously people are not happy with the current system, so why not at least try something different? If it doesnt work out and there are glaring inconsistencies, it was at least an attempt to shift from the current inconsistencies and inactivity we see now.

[WILLIAMS5232]

What most people don't tend to think of, is that, really no matter what we, as mods do(Mainly the Multi hunters, but you can include other mods based on other aspects of the sites), no matter how we handle a case, someone, or a group of people are going to dislike the outcome of it. There really tends to be no way the mods can get a win win where everyone is happy. You also have to think of the consequences if we were to change the Farming rule, such as more cases of those quad's games being reported where Colonel teams are playing a bunch of cooks/cadets.

I, personally, would like to see this rule changed up a bit, AND have the New Recruit stage changed. I liked Queen Herpes idea of increasing the New Recruit stage to 15/20 games. But I didn't like the unlocking of maps. What I think needs to be done, from my personal point of view, and my point of view as a mod, is that we need to mesh, basically, a change in the farming rules with a change in the New Recruit stage. Have a bunch of veterans from the site, who have been here a long time and seen the site change as a whole, seen the up's and downs of thing's that have happened, which a new user wouldn't know has happened, and some or all of the mods, sit down (aka, have discussions in a forum), as to how we can change this part of the site to make the New Recruit/New player stage a lot easier for everyone. I'm not saying some of the newer players idea's shouldn't be considered, but having too many POV's can make things overcomplicated at times. I'd really like to see a PM sent out to new player's, who have either just joined the site, or finished the NR stage, explaining types of maps and things to expect, like Auto Deploys, Win/Lose Conditions, and explaining the types of games, mainly Freestyle. As a Chat Mod, it's actually surprising how many user's come into LC and ask how someone was playing at the same time. To make this suggestion as helpful as possible, I believe a few other suggestions need to be brought in as well.

i just don't see how this helps. 15/20 games will not give an inexperienced player the skills to beat a field marshall that invited him to a freestyle city mogul game. as i stated before, if you're not so harsh on the 1st and 2nd offense, then you'll weed out the ones that are willing to cooperate. it's easy for most to see what is abuse and what is not. [5 games = not abuse. 150 games = abuse.] i just don't see how this can be so difficult. when you see a guy setting or joining massive amounts of freestyle games on city mogul, lunar war, and waterloo. against low ranks with very few completed games, then you may think it's time to tell him to quit doing that. and i'm sure that you will have the backing of the majority of conquer club users. this not only makes the "farmed" players games not fun, but it also deteriorates the whole scoreboard.

[Metsfanmax]

In no way do I see anything in my suggestion that would all of a sudden make the majority of users take advantage of the scoring system. There is still the escalating punishment system in place, so those who truly did not understand the severity of setting up games that bait lower ranked players would not be instantly tossed from the site. But the majority of users that use these tactics realize EXACTLY what theyre doing, I personally guarantee it. If I wanted to raise my rank substantially in a few days, there have been enough examples of cheating that line that I know I could do it and completely get away with it, likely at the dissatisfaction of others trying to enjoy themselves.

There's a topic in GD regarding "Is CC declining?" that brings up these exact topics, and should mention how concrete rules just create new ways to take advantage of the current system. I agree there should be the set-in-stone rules of no multis, no farming NRs, etc. But there needs to be some way to punish the obvious "gross abuses" that the public sees on a regular basis, instead of throwing up our hands and saying its not on the rule page.

The only reason that we consider these actions "gross abuses" is because we know on a gut level that they should be against the rules. If we come up with a more comprehensive and more protective set of rules defining farming and taking advantage of low ranked players, we'll remove most of the gross abuse. Yes, there will still be people who do as much as they can to earn easy points without stepping over the line, but if we set the rule properly then that won't be a real abuse of the system and the community, it'll just be shady sportsmanship.

[WILLIAMS5232]

but if we set the rule properly then that won't be a real abuse of the system and the community, it'll just be shady sportsmanship.

this whole suggestion is about "shady sportsmanship". Creating shady sportsmanship to rid the site of shady sportsmanship is unacceptable.

[Metsfanmax]

but if we set the rule properly then that won't be a real abuse of the system and the community, it'll just be shady sportsmanship.

this whole suggestion is about "shady sportsmanship". Creating shady sportsmanship to rid the site of shady sportsmanship is unacceptable.

You can't eliminate it, you can only reduce it to an acceptable level. That is the aim of the current discussion. The goal here is to protect new players, not to decide for other players how they should play the game.

[WILLIAMS5232]

but if we set the rule properly then that won't be a real abuse of the system and the community, it'll just be shady sportsmanship.

this whole suggestion is about "shady sportsmanship". Creating shady sportsmanship to rid the site of shady sportsmanship is unacceptable.

You can't eliminate it, you can only reduce it to an acceptable level. That is the aim of the current discussion. The goal here is to protect new players, not to decide for other players how they should play the game.

in my opinion this discussion is about stopping what the majority of CC users perceive as "farming". farming = shady sportsmanship.

it seems to me that you are for farming. i say this because you don't care to put an effort in stopping it. only making a new basis as to what a new recruit is. which in my opinion does not stop farming. it still allows an endless amount of games to be created and joined as long as they are at or above the criteria for what a new "new recruit" is considered. which is still easy pickings for someone that knows what they are doing. there's not much more experience gained in 40 games as there is after 5. especially when you talk about freestyle. but this is the great thing about using common sense and judgment. you can choose and discuss what constitutes abuse or not.

i don't see why there is such a heavy resistance for having or appointing people to make judgement calls. as long as they are unbiased i'm sure they will be accepted by the vast majority. plus, i don't see how this creates much more work. you open a group pm and discuss it at your convenience. then there is the verdict. don't sound that difficult to me.