kraphtone- extreme noob farming [warned]

[alster]

A review over the latest anti-farming reports below.

I can draw the following conclusions:

1. After the Owenator-report it seems unclear whether merely setting up games (no matter how many ?s who join) could be sanctioned under the anti-farming rule or not. It may require an additional element present (e.g. dropping games, sending invites) and/or possibly the element of a previous warning/suggestion to change settings etc. This issue can be clarified here.

2. The anti-farming rule has been applied to joining games (not starting, passively allowing ?s to join) where the ?-rate has been 24% and 30%. Question is, should the same rate be applied to joining as well as setting up. It seems so to me - at least without further mod clarification/practice - as this provides for foreseeability here. And, a 24% ?-rate is very high no matter whether joining or starting games (without very particular settings, it’s highly unlikely to see such a ?-rate joining one’s public games).

3. For merely starting games (passively allowing ?s to join) the anti-farming rule has been applied to a 50% ?-rate.

[alster]

September 2009

tdans - possible farming [closed]
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... hilit=farm

This was cleared without any mod comment.

Comments: 8 games set up approx. the same time where ?s joined. A brief look at the accused’s game list shows a variety of games set up / played, so this report does not tell us much.


August 2009

Owenator - I dont believe in improbable coincidence[cleared]
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... hilit=farm

No breach of the anti-farming rule found, but an interesting mod statement indicating that previous practice may no longer apply:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p2169610

by king achilles on Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:52 am
I checked if owenator is a multi with any new recruit and he is cleared. He also has a mixture of opponents.

For a newbie farming case possibility, I think it is no longer surprising that Feudal map is one of those maps that certain people have loved to use and create games from it, which coincidentally, many new recruits actually join. One question to ponder for one's intention is, would you love the map this much if you were not playing with new recruits most of the time?

I will be less strict from now on regarding this newbie farming rule as I do not want to dictate how a player wishes to enjoy the game on this site.

If the accused is the one joining the games and/or we see evidence that he/she is inviting new recruits, then we probably have a case to look at.

Still, if a player has mostly new recruits as his opponents in his collection of games with a specific setting, we might suggest to change your preferred settings from time to time in respect of the newbie farming rule.

If we get reports or comments about certain maps that have been 'abused' because they lure too many new recruits often, who knows, there could be some adjustments to further balance the games out there.

Comments: A possible interpretation could be that merely setting up games (no matter how many ?s who join) will never be sanctioned under the anti-farming rule. For the rule to come into play, an additional element would need to be present, e.g. dropping games, sending invites etc. But, merely setting up games could result in a warning (which could be sanctioned if the behavior continues). The present case seems like a good opportunity to clarify this statement.


August 2009
MOBAJOBG - Farming [warned]
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... hilit=farm

Comments: A review of the last 100 1v.1 games showed 30 games being 1 v. 1 games played against ?s at the time of the initiation of respective game, i.e. a 30% ? rate. This concerned joining, not starting. However, the 30% rate should seemingly not depend on whether joining or starting games (passively allowing ?s to join).

The accused was warned (no further mod comment).
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2156097


July 2009
Tezu - possible farmer [noted]
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ilit=+farm

Comment that came with the accusation:

Nearly half of the games on Tezu's first page are 4-5p freestyle Feudal singles with 3 or 4 ?'s each. Just scrolling down the page shows a startling number of New Recruits clustered in these games, to say nothing of the fact that freestyle Feudal games are extraordinarily ?-unfrienldly (personally I'm astonished that Feudal isn't on the newbie restricted list).

Comments: Let us assume a 50% rate here. If the above 30% ?-rate for joining does not apply to starting games (passively allowing ?s to join), then at least a 50% threshold has been established in past practice.

This behavior was deemed to violate the anti-farming rule. Noted with mod statement:

This is noted.

As someone who is no longer a new player, we would like to remind the rule for Newbie Farming.

"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.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73745

We suggest that you diversify your games and move away from games which might be interpreted as farming. If you know or learn that what you have been creating attracts new recruits all the time, and yet you continue to do this same pattern, then you can be seen as newbie farming because of what you know. I suggest that you change your pattern or style of games that you create from time to time so that there would be more mixture of players that you can have a game with. With this rule for Newbie Farming, we all have to adjust to it.

This doesn't mean you can't play against new recruits, but if you continue to have suspiciously above average attendance with new recruits in the same games you created consistently, we can consider this behavior as newbie farming.

July 2009
dupa, normanjr4 -- New Recruit Farming [Warned]
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ilit=+farm

Warning issued without further mod comments/clarifications.

Comments: The anti-farming rule applied to joining games (not starting, passively allowing ?s to join).

Reported farming games stats:
Accused no 1: 12 out of the 50 last games (i.e. 24%).
Accused no 2: 21 out of the 50 last games (i.e. 42%).

Again, shall the 24% rate be applied to both joining as well as starting games (passively allowing ?s to join). It seems so to me, at least without further mod clarification/practice, as this provides for foreseeability here. And, a 24% ?-rate is very high no matter whether joining or starting games (without very particular settings, it’s highly unlikely to see such a ?-rate joining one’s public games).


June 2009
Nathan BJ - Farming New Recruits [Warned]
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ilit=+farm


Comments: The anti-farming rule applied to starting games (passively allowing ?s to join. But, an additional element seems to have been present here, namely that the accused had actively invited ?s to join the games in question.

Warned with the following mod comment:

Per the Major/Severe Infraction Guidelines, as outlined in the Community Guidelines, since this is Nathan BJ's first Infractions, he has been Warned to stop Farming New Recruits, due to the Game evidence in this topic, in addition to the investigated testimony of many new recruits stating that they were immediately sent a PM out of the blue upon their joining of Conquer Club.

Should he continue, or be involved in any other Major/Severe Infraction, he will be on a 1 Month Vacation from gaming on Conquer Club, in addition to being elligble for a possible Point Reset to 1000.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... m#p2091966


June 2009
Demonfork...is this farming? [cleared]
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ilit=+farm

Comments: This report clarifies (if it ever was unclear) that only ?s fall under the anti-farming rule.

Cleared with mod comment:

If the player is no longer wearing a "?" rank, we can consider him as no longer a new recruit, therefore, he can play games with anyone. More so, if the new player is the one who created the game, then whoever joins his game will be following his preferred settings. Looking at demonfork's 1 vs 1 freestyle games, I think generally it is still pretty much a mix of different ranked players. It has also helped demonfork's case that most of these "new" members he has played with has stayed around and became regular players of the site so far.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2082015

Comments: This report is not spectacular, but the mod comment clearing/noting the report touches upon the review that is made with respect to framing accusations, namely that an overall check of all games as well as the particular map (assumingly also settings) that the reported games have been played on.

Checking the games he played overall, and the games played on the City Mogul map, they look fine. Is there a significant number of games that he has played with new accounts? So far, his games look fine. Based from the report, this is like making a bomb joke in an airport or an airplane. Poor choice of words on alex951 part. Noted.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p2071344


April 2009
Gen.LeeGettinhed newbie farming again? [warned]
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ilit=+farm

Comments: The anti-farming rule applied to joining games (not starting, passively allowing ?s to join).

Warned with mod comment:

We took some time in reviewing the games he has been playing. Granted that he comes into live chat at certain times to find players he can have games with, basically most of his games are played with ranks lower than his. There are games with new accounts but we could say that they are not yet significant enough for a disciplinary measure. Even though that most of these new accounts do come back and play games regularly, personally, I could consider this as a close call and I strongly advise that he shy away from joining games with new accounts for the meantime. Be warned that if we get another report that you are again joining games with new accounts and their numbers are noteworthy, a score reset will be the next step.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p1979402

Comments: Obviously not a significant ?-rate was found here. A quick review, well, perhaps 15-20%. However, an additional factor was present (which presumably contribute quite a lot to the warning), namely that the accused set up games through the live chat etc.

[AAFitz]

Nice work alster.. I remember some of those, but forgot many of them. And just finding a few of them were tough.

I think its clear its a gray area to some degree on a case like this, and at least three of them dealt exclusively with feudal, which kind of proves if nothing else its time to block that one.

I think at this point, the mods will probably once again have to define farming, and I wouldnt be surprised to see this pending for a little while.

I for one hope they find a fair way to curb such obvious farming of new recruits though, because it really does make a mockery of the game and the scoreboard....not to say protecting new recruits will solve that, but at least its a start.

[KraphtOne]

the only one you posted that deals with this exactly is this one

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ilit=+farm

and unlike this thread TEZU had plenty of support, whereas here its the same 3 idiots posting over and over that i'm a farmer


there are easier ways to farm than setting up 4 man feudals and taking on all comers...

for instance, i can specifically target low ranked players that have started casual freestyle games... johnny

[alster]

the only one you posted that deals with this exactly is this one

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ilit=+farm

and unlike this thread TEZU had plenty of support, whereas here its the same 3 idiots posting over and over that i'm a farmer

And the Owenator-report, which contains a mod statement that (at least partly) supports your view.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... hilit=farm

It seems to me that the statement therein would either have to be clarified, or become settled practice (i.e. clearing you the possibly combined with a suggestion to change settings).

In addtion, it seems to me that there are a two "positive" circumstances, e.g.

1. Your thread re preventing ?s from playing Feudal.
2. No proof or suggestions that you have actively encouraged ?s to join your games.

As the mods have indicated that a broad view should be taken, it would be in line with that to take those two circumstances into account (but alone or combined, past practice does not indicate that those circumstances would provide a safe harbor against a warning).

[KraphtOne]

and here is what you posted fitz... ya dope

Re: Tezu - possible farmer [noted]

Postby AAFitz on Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:15 am
Well, newbie farming was originally made illegal, because people were making tons of games like this, and not just playing all of them. They were dropping the ones that DID not fill up with newbies, Ie. making it farming.

If tezu was not doing this, than it probably wasnt farming. But, if all of the games get settup and fill up with noobs, it does become farming, especially if other games were dropped, when non newbies joined. The key is really the percentage, and if Tezu doesnt want to farm noobs, dropping a game or two isnt actually that bad....and if the occasional one slips through, hopefully that would be understandable.

This was noted obviously, just to make sure she wasnt actually farming, and to make sure it didnt happen in the future. These cases are especially hard, because its impossible to know if other games were set up, and dropped when non-newbies joined. Im assuming that wasnt the case here, but it is the reason why it was noted...

Its just a precaution against farming. Its unfortunate that the real farmers created this situation in the first place.


and obviously i'm not setting up and dropping games...

[Mr Changsha]

I think I would need to see active solicitation of new recruits and mass foeing before I would be convinced it would be worth it to prosecute a player who is, when it comes down to it, starting 5 man public games.

There may come a time when I myself develop an interest in an obscure map or style and would hate to be sanctioned for playing it just because it attracted new recruits.

There is not enough real evidence here; there are countless game numbers I grant you, numerous weak and deadbeating players no doubt, but that does not make the case. Anyone from the conqueror down could have joined those games. They are five man standard games...it is terribly difficult to farm such games long-term without doing one of the two things I've listed above.

Finally, Fitz's concept of self-regulation is rather tricky. He's not breaking rules when he starts these games and one could say that it is up to Lack to code these problems away, or for hunters to identify problems and censure accordingly. I don't think it is up to us (as a general point) to be overly worried about who joins public games when we set them up.

[AAFitz]

the only one you posted that deals with this exactly is this one

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ilit=+farm

and unlike this thread TEZU had plenty of support, whereas here its the same 3 idiots posting over and over that i'm a farmer


there are easier ways to farm than setting up 4 man feudals and taking on all comers...

for instance, i can specifically target low ranked players that have started casual freestyle games... johnny

You did get the announcement that flaming is against the rules too right? you're calling people punkassess, idiots, ya dope, "just a dick"...retarted posts,..you might want to be careful..hate to see you get a forum ban too. I dont even think anyone has called you a cheater here....just a farmer of new recruits...which is a rather big difference. This isnt a personal thing. Its just about you farming some new recruits. Many did it in the past with no consequences, and Ive killed plenty myself. Now its against the rules though, so we are doing are part to ensure the rules are followed.

And you are farming, and clearly broke the rule. The only question is, how it will be handled.

As far as my post there kraphtone, perhaps you should have read this line...which fits your case, exactly

But, if all of the games get settup and fill up with noobs, it does become farming,

..Thatnk you for pointing out my consistency with what Ive posted here, and since he was warned to change his setting up of games if they continued to fil up with new recruits...its even more obvious. Also, how many games did he do this in? Its the volume of games and the massive number of new recruits you did this to in just a month that is eliciting this response, as well as the ratio of new recruits to non new recruits, which is just staggeringly high.

The sheer volume of games, the percentage, and the time frame is what makes your case different. Having it happen accidentally once in a while is one thing, but obviously, this was not accidental and therefore becomes systematic farming.

[AAFitz]

I think I would need to see active solicitation of new recruits and mass foeing before I would be convinced it would be worth it to prosecute a player who is, when it comes down to it, starting 5 man public games.

There may come a time when I myself develop an interest in an obscure map or style and would hate to be sanctioned for playing it just because it attracted new recruits.

There is not enough real evidence here; there are countless game numbers I grant you, numerous weak and dead-beating players no doubt, but that does not make the case. Anyone from the conqueror down could have joined those games. They are five man standard games...it is terribly difficult to farm such games long-term without doing one of the two things I've listed above.

Finally, Fitz's concept of self-regulation is rather tricky. He's not breaking rules when he starts these games and one could say that it is up to Lack to code these problems away, or for hunters to identify problems and censure accordingly. I don't think it is up to us (as a general point) to be overly worried about who joins public games when we set them up.

I mostly agree...and in any normal situation this would be true...but when there are that many games, that many new recruits in that short a time period, it becomes obvious it is not an accident, but the actual objective, and then becomes systematic targeting. It obviously needs to be handled differently, but since the rule was meant to protect against new recruits getting taken advantage of, these acts clearly broke the rule. A few games here or there, or the occasional new recruit, or if these occurred over a long time would be one thing...but over a month, means it cant be an accident, and quite frankly, was obviously the plan all along. He found a method of attracting new recruits...he set up as many as he could to insure hed get new recruits, and that is expressly what the rule was meant to stop. He knew the method worked, and continued to repeatedly use it, so often, that it wasnt just a side effect....it was the intended effect...the only way this isnt true is if the percentage is actually lower than it seems.

I think what will be very interesting, will be to see what happens after new recruits are blocked from this map...because I dont think there is any question that that will happen now, given three cases of possible abuse on it, in a short period of time.

[Woodruff]

I think I would need to see active solicitation of new recruits and mass foeing before I would be convinced it would be worth it to prosecute a player who is, when it comes down to it, starting 5 man public games.

I agree completely. It seems patently unfair to me that someone should be getting in trouble for others joining his games (as long as he did not invite them), ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SITE REFUSES TO ALLOW HIM TO SET UP RANKING LIMITATIONS (but that would cause too many problems?).

See...setting up the ability to have those ranking limitations would fix this problem! Farming would become far more easy to discern.

[alster]

Stats KraphtOne re:
Active/Finished – Feudal Wars – Standard – 4 player – Freestyle

The search covers Game 5794544 (2009-10-23 00:23:58 - Game has been initialized)– Game 5823257 (2009-10-27 15:08:26 - Game has been initialized)

I believe that this is an appropriate period of time and an appropriate delimitation of what games that should be reviewed in light of the specific accusation.

Stats show:

50 out of the last 61 games (last search page) contains ?s (i.e. accounts still labeled ?, not reviewing other accounts whether or not they were ? at the time the game started) = 82%

103 out of 183 opponents in those 61 games marked ? = 56%

In other words, the percentage of ?s in the reviewed games are well above 50% (the 56% figure is probably most appropriate to focus on, but the 86% gives some perspective), i.e. the threshold previously explicitly applied to the anti-farming rules with respect to a player having started games only (i.e. passively let ?s join). And also well above other thresholds applied to the anti-farming rule (e.g. 24% and 30%).

Beside the threshold comparison, few players find ?s in 86% of the games they set up. This alone warrants some considerations (especially considering that KraphtOne previously in this thread has stated that he indeed was fully aware of this tweaked attraction of the particular games he set up and, as I understand it, will continue to set up).

[AAFitz]

Stats KraphtOne re:
Active/Finished – Feudal Wars – Standard – 4 player – Freestyle

The search covers Game 5794544 (2009-10-23 00:23:58 - Game has been initialized)– Game 5823257 (2009-10-27 15:08:26 - Game has been initialized)

I believe that this is an appropriate period of time and an appropriate delimitation of what games that should be reviewed in light of the specific accusation.

Stats show:

50 out of the last 61 games (last search page) contains ?s (i.e. accounts still labeled ?, not reviewing other accounts whether or not they were ? at the time the game started) = 82%

103 out of 183 opponents in those 61 games marked ? = 56%

In other words, the percentage of ?s in the reviewed games are well above 50% (the 56% figure is probably most appropriate to focus on, but the 86% gives some perspective), i.e. the threshold previously explicitly applied to the anti-farming rules with respect to a player having started games only (i.e. passively let ?s join). And also well above other thresholds applied to the anti-farming rule (e.g. 24% and 30%).

Beside the threshold comparison, few players find ?s in 86% of the games they set up. This alone warrants some considerations (especially considering that KraphtOne previously in this thread has stated that he indeed was fully aware of this tweaked attraction of the particular games he set up and, as I understand it, will continue to set up).

wow nice research again... the percentages are through the roof obviously... though I wonder if more days should be included..not to say you have to do them... it is clear its farming beyond a reasonable doubt though....especially if those percentages carry on anywhere near that through earlier games.

Its obvious why he didnt post those percentages now too.

[jefjef]

I think I would need to see active solicitation of new recruits and mass foeing before I would be convinced it would be worth it to prosecute a player who is, when it comes down to it, starting 5 man public games.

I agree completely. It seems patently unfair to me that someone should be getting in trouble for others joining his games (as long as he did not invite them), ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SITE REFUSES TO ALLOW HIM TO SET UP RANKING LIMITATIONS (but that would cause too many problems?).

See...setting up the ability to have those ranking limitations would fix this problem! Farming would become far more easy to discern.

AND on a map that many those accused of farming play. CC should block ?? from playing non standard maps. IE Feudal - City Mogul - etc...

If this is construed as farming then CC is to blame for NOT limiting maps noobs can join OR not putting rank restrictions in place. I say No one can play an officer until they earn a stripe.

[KraphtOne]

or maybe i didnt feel it necessary to look through hundreds of games and count the % of opponents that were new recruits...

no-one is disputing that there are a lot of them, nobody is disputing that they shouldnt be allowed in feudal games...

but you keep hammering the same point over and over... doesnt seem you've swayed anyone's opinion...

post after post of people thinking this is a silly accusation and only a couple of you arguing that someone shouldnt be allowed to host 4 man public feudal games...

your suggestion would be that i do what? stop playing 4 man feudal games all together? i posted a thread showing that feudal was a hot game for new recruits and several mods saw the thread and none of them warned that i should stop making 4 man feudal games or i'd be a farmer...

because that makes no sense...

[AAFitz]

well, it actually makes alot of sense, if you want to stop farming new recruits... but I think youve made it fully clear that that was and is your intent. Have fun with it.

As far as swaying people...do you seriously gauge peoples opinion, by the handful of posts in a thread? Anyways, Ive only responded to each of your concerns, and since you were essentially accused of a kind of cheating....again...not real cheating...I felt you deserved responses. The fact that its the most farming since the rule was made is the other reason.

Oh, and sorry about those delay tactics that you foed me for. Its obvious you are out to play the most fair games out there possible now.

[obliterationX]

101% presposterous.

[AAFitz]

101% presposterous.

82% of games with new recruits

over 50% of players new recruits

whats presposterous is seeing this as anything except targeting new recruits

[alster]

101% presposterous.

You wanna bet? Or would you even wanna try out the stats I sent you by pm a while back?

[obliterationX]

101% presposterous.

You wanna bet? Or would you even wanna try out the stats I sent you by pm a while back?

Let's try them out!

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

101% presposterous.

You wanna bet? Or would you even wanna try out the stats I sent you by pm a while back?

Let's try them out!

your farming thread is coming up next.......not to get off topic here

[obliterationX]

101% presposterous.

You wanna bet? Or would you even wanna try out the stats I sent you by pm a while back?

Let's try them out!

your farming thread is coming up next.......not to get off topic here

Nothing but a waste of time if you ask me, friend, I'm sure less than 2% of my opponents are ?s.

Edit: On second thoughts, I'll be adventurous, and approximate that less than 1% of my opponents are NR's.

[colton24]

johnny what i'm doing is not farming, i'm opening alot of games, quite a few of em get jumped on by new recruits, i can't help that...

farming is where you join games with low ranks to gain advantage and build your score...

It Looks Something Like This

Game 472627
Game 472961
Game 472971
Game 476852
Game 476883
Game 476894
Game 476910
Game 476969
Game 476979
Game 477053
Game 477099
Game 477185
Game 477191
Game 477192
Game 477200
Game 477246
Game 477248
Game 477259
Game 477720
Game 477730
Game 477940
Game 477964
Game 478148
Game 478386
Game 478436
Game 479114
Game 479209
Game 480222
Game 480090
Game 481068
Game 481631
Game 481730
Game 481813
Game 481857
Game 482005
Game 482593
Game 482718
Game 483100
Game 483178
Game 483199
Game 483202
Game 483341
Game 483488
Game 483528
Game 483552
Game 483585
Game 483599
Game 483659
Game 483687
Game 484382
Game 484851
Game 484983
Game 485069
Game 485106
Game 485130
Game 485423
Game 485539
Game 485588
Game 485617
Game 486005
Game 486044
Game 486125
Game 486287
Game 486387
Game 486413
Game 486470
Game 486482
Game 486485
Game 486486
Game 486487
Game 486618
Game 487364
Game 487486
Game 488111
Game 488305
Game 488653
Game 488660
Game 488927
Game 488977
Game 489183
Game 489350
Game 489362
Game 489461
Game 489466
Game 489523
Game 489608
Game 489677
Game 489770
Game 489956
Game 490063
Game 490132
Game 490221
Game 490336
Game 491696
Game 492094
Game 492100
Game 492410
Game 492959
Game 493023
Game 493041


This is just the first 100... he has over 6500 1vs1 casual games where he joined with a low rank

You'll notice that these are listed from longest time ago to most recent... I started from the first casual game that game finder could find, and worked my way up... he's been doing it forever

Kudos Though On Your # Of Wins And Your Win Percentage And Whatever Else It Is That You Seem To Brag About All The Time

Learn From Etropal And Stay Away From K1 Before He Busts You

They are all corporals or corporal 1st class. You don't have proof they were new recruits

[lord voldemort]

OK,

After a discussion with other mods I have decided to issue Krapt with a warning.
The high % of new recruits is a worry, but mostly the fact that Krapht admits that he knows these games attract new recruits and he contiuues to create the games. We consider this a grose abuse of the game as it creates annoying and unwelcoming gaming atmospheres for the New Recruits involved.
Lack is in the process of adding Feudal to the mpas that new recruits can't play. When that happens I dont know, but he has been again made aware that it is a map used for farming. So he is 'on it'.

lv

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

OK,

After a discussion with other mods I have decided to issue Krapt with a warning.
The high % of new recruits is a worry, but mostly the fact that Krapht admits that he knows these games attract new recruits and he contiuues to create the games. We consider this a grose abuse of the game as it creates annoying and unwelcoming gaming atmospheres for the New Recruits involved.
Lack is in the process of adding Feudal to the mpas that new recruits can't play. When that happens I dont know, but he has been again made aware that it is a map used for farming. So he is 'on it'.

lv

as always, the mods made the right decision.

thanks,

JR

[Woodruff]

101% presposterous.

82% of games with new recruits
over 50% of players new recruits
whats presposterous is seeing this as anything except targeting new recruits

I must disagree. I have almost NEVER had an 8-man public game I've started (which is my preference) not have a ? in it. That's based on ALL maps (because I play a great many). It's frankly ludicrous to expect that it won't happen, as there are so damn many newbies running around...so should I be accused of newbie farming, as well? My only crime would be starting a lot of 8-player public games on a lot of different maps.

Totally non-sensical and illogical.