Conquer Club

alstergen so out of that many games you only find games he started. with mixed ranks signing up to them games. this most of us class as ok because we cannot stop who joins our games.

the games we are seeing put towards you are opposite to this. they start them and you join them. (which since nr's are hidden from us means you are looking for there games.)

GeneralRisk wrote:

alstergren wrote:And yes - one of the mods gives me a head's up when he spots a multi to give me a chance to join his games before busting the account

Thank you for being honest and admitting your dishonesty. I suppose in the face of so much damning evidence it leaves you few options. Was it eye84 that tipped you off?

Among others. They are all in on it.

eddie2 wrote:the games we are seeing put towards you are opposite to this. they start them and you join them. (which since nr's are hidden from us means you are looking for there games.)

This doesn't make sense? Who are hidden from who? And of course every game needs to be joined. In that sense, you're "looking" for every single game you join. Starting games can be ?-farming as well as joining them. It comes down to what is systematic. With a mixed game list and a reasonably low % of ?-games, it's, as far as I'm aware, not systematic. But of course what is systematic all depends on how you define it and what you're looking at (a fixed number, a percentage, a period of time, a certain number of games etc.). That's what makes this rule annoying since it's easy for people find faults and difficult to know what an outcome of a complaint would be. Here, I didn't think much of it until I got a PM about this thread. I don't think it's systematic ?-farming on my part due to the overall picture, but could imagine that KA very well could say that 19 ?-games during 1 month is too much. Annoying when you pay 25 bucks and don't go on a ? killing spree to raise the score. Anyways, I'm heading out of town for a ski trip. I'll check this when I get back next week. Enjoy the opportunity to flame.

alstergren wrote:

IR1SH ACE wrote:so the OP has listed 9 games with NR's, I would like to add 10 more games to the OP and this is only in the LAST MONTH since this report was opened...

(how did alster know he was a multi after only 1 move of the game....and why not say it when they both finished there first move....why did he wait till the end of his 2nd move 8 hours later to say it...must be good to have a MH as a mate)

this guy never even took a turn and was kicked out 6 hours after the start of this game and also 6 hours after joining the site....damn that was some fast work....

Do I need to go check back another month?

FEEL FREE TO DOUBLE CHECK ALL THIS ON MAP RANK.......

Not sure what you're doing with map rank. But as far as I can tell, you're naming games at the bottom of page 2 of my game list. With end of page 2 being 200 games in total, these ? would be less than 10% of these played games. Everything is relative.

its funny that you would quote me but not actually read it.....I said in the LAST MONTH since this report was opened.....

if you have a look again at your games played here..............alstergren - Games Played Page 1

and scroll down towards the bottom you will find this..........Game 10434968.....with [player]Blynn07[/player]
this game is the most recent one mentioned in the OP....

now if you have a look again at your games played here........alstergren - Games Played Page 2

and scroll down towards the bottom you will find this..........Game 10267132.....with [player]maesteezyy[/player]
which is the oldest game that I mentioned in my first post

so straight away I can see that there are about 100 games between Game 10434968 and Game 10267132
in my first post i just map ranked u from the start of this C&A Report but i will be precise this time and count them myself...

116 games played is what I got....if anyone else would care to check that please do..........

still gives you 16.5%.....of ur games in the LAST MONTH against NR's

alstergren wrote:And yes please, go back another month (or more). As far as I can tell looking at my game pages, the share of ?-games will drop pretty fast.

no problem will check it out and get back to you

Cheers Ace

So on what planet could 16.5% be considered "systematic targeting"?

The issue that we should be focusing on is that Al was told by moderators to join the games of players that were about to be busted.

This is the real issue...

chapcrap wrote:

alstergren wrote:For it to be systematic, I would assume that it would have to reach a relatively high % of games joined.

Systematic doesn't imply a high percentage. It implies you use a system.

demonfork wrote:So on what planet could 16.5% be considered "systematic targeting"?

The issue that we should be focusing on is that Al was told by moderators to join the games of players that were about to be busted.

This is the real issue...

Maybe on the planet where having a certain percentage has nothing to do with having a system.

I don't know about the mods telling him to join games. That seems a little far fetched to me and it doesn't seem like there is any hard evidence to point to that. Only circumstantial evidence that some players he joined games with got busted. I've had players get busted while I was playing them too. It's not like he had 40 games where someone was busted.

chapcrap wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

alstergren wrote:For it to be systematic, I would assume that it would have to reach a relatively high % of games joined.

Systematic doesn't imply a high percentage. It implies you use a system.

demonfork wrote:So on what planet could 16.5% be considered "systematic targeting"?

The issue that we should be focusing on is that Al was told by moderators to join the games of players that were about to be busted.

This is the real issue...

Maybe on the planet where having a certain percentage has nothing to do with having a system.

I don't know about the mods telling him to join games. That seems a little far fetched to me and it doesn't seem like there is any hard evidence to point to that. Only circumstantial evidence that some players he joined games with got busted. I've had players get busted while I was playing them too. It's not like he had 40 games where someone was busted.

I never said that having a certain percentage did have anything to do with having a system.

I didn't say

"On what planet could 16.5% be considered having a system"

Did I say that?

Or is it just that you have a problem with picking and choosing what you want to see?

If I develop a system that entails playing a new recruit every Christmas Eve, I'm pretty certain that this system would not land under the umbrella of "systematically targeting new recruits"

But if I create a system that entails making new recruits my specific target, I'm fairly certain that my percentage of play against new recruits should be maybe higher than 16.5%....otherwise my targeting skills might be taken into question.

chapcrap wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

alstergren wrote:For it to be systematic, I would assume that it would have to reach a relatively high % of games joined.

Systematic doesn't imply a high percentage. It implies you use a system.

demonfork wrote:So on what planet could 16.5% be considered "systematic targeting"?

The issue that we should be focusing on is that Al was told by moderators to join the games of players that were about to be busted.

This is the real issue...

Maybe on the planet where having a certain percentage has nothing to do with having a system.

I don't know about the mods telling him to join games. That seems a little far fetched to me and it doesn't seem like there is any hard evidence to point to that. Only circumstantial evidence that some players he joined games with got busted. I've had players get busted while I was playing them too.It's not like he had 40 games where someone was busted.

He very well could have 100..........I just started checking page 3 and dubs game with eye84 was busted....http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=10175997

demonfork wrote:
The issue that we should be focusing on is that Al was told by moderators to join the games of players that were about to be busted.

This is the real issue...

He said that as a joke. This is surely not happening.

Laws of Averages says it is agent

"On what planet could 16.5% be considered having a system"

Alster system does target NR's. He just happens to water down the % with cadets and cooks and privates. But it is still a farming system and it still is targeting ?...

Where as mine and many many others peoples games include 0.000000000000001 % NR's...

Barney Rubble wrote:Laws of Averages says it is agent

What? Are you saying that he joins more games against people who get busted as multi's than could happen by chance when joining games against "?"s? If so, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Maybe I missed it. Please enlighten me.

jefjef wrote:

"On what planet could 16.5% be considered having a system"

Alster system does target NR's. He just happens to water down the % with cadets and cooks and privates. But it is still a farming system and it still is targeting ?...

Where as mine and many many others peoples games include 0.000000000000001 % NR's...

How can you see you % of ranked players played?

alstergren wrote:

GeneralRisk wrote:

alstergren wrote:And yes - one of the mods gives me a head's up when he spots a multi to give me a chance to join his games before busting the account

Thank you for being honest and admitting your dishonesty. I suppose in the face of so much damning evidence it leaves you few options. Was it eye84 that tipped you off?

Among others. They are all in on it.

I am calling Bullshit. Prove it!

Bruceswar wrote:

alstergren wrote:

GeneralRisk wrote:

alstergren wrote:And yes - one of the mods gives me a head's up when he spots a multi to give me a chance to join his games before busting the account

Thank you for being honest and admitting your dishonesty. I suppose in the face of so much damning evidence it leaves you few options. Was it eye84 that tipped you off?

Among others. They are all in on it.

I am calling Bullshit. Prove it!

Don't encourage the conspiracy theorists :/

I haven't seen much discussion on Alster's claim of playing with NR's because of looking for more unique defeats. It seems as good a reason as any to play them every now and then?

i just don't understand the rules around here anymore... i just don't understand them at all... so damn sad that again eye84free is being called into question over ethical moderation practices in a complaint against one of his friends... how many chances? how many rugs can they continue to sweep things under? sigh...-el Jesus negro

owenshooter wrote:i just don't understand the rules around here anymore... i just don't understand them at all... so damn sad that again eye84free is being called into question over ethical moderation practices in a complaint against one of his friends... how many chances? how many rugs can they continue to sweep things under? sigh...-el Jesus negro

Judging by the amount of time this complaint has been in C&A and not dealt with...

demonfork wrote:So on what planet could 16.5% be considered "systematic targeting"?

The issue that we should be focusing on is that Al was told by moderators to join the games of players that were about to be busted.

This is the real issue...

i agree 100%... and this also calls into question the ruling made in the initial eye8free case in which an admin stated that he had only done it once and it was a mistake. this shows that he had knowledge of what he was doing and intent. intent to the extent that he extended this illegal point gathering to his close friend. this place is so out of control, i don't understand why things haven't been shaken up and these mods that have brought Team CC's credibility under scrutiny haven't been tossed.-el Jesus negro

agentcom wrote:

demonfork wrote:
The issue that we should be focusing on is that Al was told by moderators to join the games of players that were about to be busted.

This is the real issue...

He said that as a joke. This is surely not happening.

Yes. Of course it was a joke, think that was pretty clear. How on earth would that be practically possible?

jefjef wrote:

"On what planet could 16.5% be considered having a system"

Alster system does target NR's. He just happens to water down the % with cadets and cooks and privates. But it is still a farming system and it still is targeting ?...

Where as mine and many many others peoples games include 0.000000000000001 % NR's...

No, it's not a system as in "systematic". And the 16.5% figure is too high IMO (you can get pretty much any percentage depending on the parameters). Looking at the game pages these games are found in, it's less than 10% of respective game page (which in itself is higher than usual compared to other game pages). Joining games is not systematic, that's clear from the rule anouncement.

"Newbie Farming" is the technique of setting up as many games as possible (either by starting or joining them) with New Recruits to gain easy points by taking advantage of difficult game options and the fact the New Recruits are more likely to deadbeat. Some players have been farming extensively - even sending hundreds of PMs to the latest members to get them into their games.

This does not mean you will get in trouble for joining a game here and there with many new recruits. We are only talking about the systematic targeting of new recruits.

Besides, this is just something you say because you have a personal grudge for some reason.

jefjef wrote:You are talking about so few examples, of which not all of those private games were against ?'s, that this can hardly be construed as farming or invite abuse.

He has 19 private games (out of 175) of which 7 have/were new recruits (a couple/few others could have been NR's at the time of the games). In the grand scheme of things there just are not enough.

Not even note worthy.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=159499&start=0&hilit=farming#p3496130

I would think that setting up ten or so straight private games and inviting ?s is "worse" than having less then 20 NRs in the past 200 games or so. But what do I know. I think this is silly, it's clearly not a matter of extensively harvesting points. But I do like to throw in a few NRs (although not as many as this per game page) to get unique kills. That ranking together with a few others have been my personal goals the past year or two playing CC.

With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if KA etc. believe that this is NR-farming. IMO that would be a bit upsetting since I don't think this is at all consitent neither with the rule announcement nor with older threads I've seen on this subject and only causes to make to make this rule more uncertain.

yawn...(just mark this as closed, we all know what kinda "cleaning" is being done around here)

So, in a span of one month, we have about 28 games where alstergren joined NR games?

and the verdict is.......

king achilles wrote:So, in a span of one month, we have about 28 games where alstergren joined NR games?

What? I see 19 games that people are screaming about (less than 5 per week) which are spread over 2 game pages (200 games). I think this thread is way out of proportion since it is explicitly ok to join NR games unless it's "systematic". In itself, but also especially if taking into account that this is more NRs than usual for me, I don't really see how this is "systematic". This rule is vague enough as it is but I've never seen a volume limit, past threads I've seen has been about relative numbers (share of NRs taking into account a bigger picture).