[Rules/MED] Cheaters should be stripped of medals [Rejected]

[patrickaa317]

I think rather than stripping their medals, they get a nice shiny asterisk medal to add to their collection so that the community can easily identify those who have cheated. And I think this new medal should be backdated.

For my money, that's not obvious enough. But that's just me.

Well seeing as you are flying a silver rank rather than a gold rank, i think there is something else that can be said about your money.

[Woodruff]

I think rather than stripping their medals, they get a nice shiny asterisk medal to add to their collection so that the community can easily identify those who have cheated. And I think this new medal should be backdated.

For my money, that's not obvious enough. But that's just me.

Well seeing as you are flying a silver rank rather than a gold rank, i think there is something else that can be said about your money.

Considering that I've accounted for more than $300 in tournament prizes alone for my tournaments, never mind the couple of years I was a premium myself, I'll have to suggest that the reason I am a silver rank has a lot more to do with a certain suggestion I posed in this forum than it does with anything else.

The idea that individuals don't buy premium simply because they're cheap or don't care about supporting or improving a site is a stupid one.

[jghost7]

Players found guilty of cheating should be stripped of their medals

Looking at a few recent cases where players who have been cheating over a fairly sustained period of time have been caught out, there's a fair amount of consensus that the punishments are kind of light for premium players who cheat.

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

A minor thing, but if a player has been cheating to gain points, it seems fair that they be stripped of the medals they have. If they're good enough to earn them under fair circumstances, they'll win them back under fair terms.

This suggestion is aimed at premium players only, and thus proposing an unbalanced punishment system. It would have to be implemented universally if at all.

Is it only multis you are worried about? The OP was kind of vague. All sorts of cheating can occur: If you are talking about multis, then that's one thing, but if you are talking about farming, then that's totally different. What cheaters do you mean?

Fair point, I was primarily thinking about people who used multis when I made the post. This coming off the back of a few threads in the C&A forum where people who had been regularly cheating with multi accounts kept their medals.

However I do agree with Lindax's points above.

This determination will be one of the main points of whether this has a chance to make it through. First thing that must be decided is what infractions specifically this suggestion would apply to. Trying to blanket this type of disciplinary action over all types of infractions would be ridiculous.

Secondly, you would have to have a fair way to determine what types and how many should be revoked. Once again, this seems like it would be a nightmare and a huge additional load to the C&A team to actually come up with hard numbers on affected victories and types.

There is a lot of disparity in opinions over what a fair use of this would be.

There is another issue with the implementation of this type of punishment. The fact that many of the "rules" are subjectively interpreted and standard definitions are avoided would create circumstances that would be unfair to the alleged rulebreaker. I would definitely not support any such measures to be imposed on any infraction that was not properly defined in the rules and the determination not subjective in any way, nor would I support the purely punitive measure as stated previously.

I think this suggestion needs to be more specific to have a true debate on whether to implement the suggestion.
What to punish and how.

There have been way too many cases ended unsatisfactorily to be comfortable with this potentially a blanket punishment.

If the choice (for ease of administration) was between stripped of all relevant medals or they status quo, I would vote for stripped of all medals and a point reset.
I would vote status quo if the rules interpretations were used currently, however if these were limited to specific instances with properly defined rules then maybe some consideration for a strip and a points penalty?

Don't let these guys buy back to their old level. As has been noted, this is far too light of a punishment. I would definitely support this for all multi accounts. There is no legitimate reason to have multis: Either you're gaming the system to gain points or you're playing games you want to without risking your points. For this, you should get a full point reset and stripped of all game medals.

The question will be harder with farming/ranching cases, especially as rules develop. Does someone who falls afoul of the "unwritten rules" of abuse of the system deserve to be stripped of their medals? Your answer to this will correlate to what you think is farming and how big of a problem it is.
Agreed thoroughly here. This is definitely among the most subjective of the rules. IE, -"Systematically Farming "New Recruits" may also systematically creating unappealing games that more savvy users avoid because of unpopular or niche game settings, thus luring New Recruits into stumbling into said games."- I can understand the desire to try to make things fair but saying I can't create a game type that I like without being labeled a 'farmer' and being subject to C&A discipline is kind of ridiculous not to mention vague. But this is only one example of many.

For flaming/baiting/bigotry, etc. abuse, maybe strip them of the less important but related medals of Ratings and General Contributions or Achievements. That's an appropriately mild punishment, I think.
I disagree here. Medal stripping just for the sake of medal stripping is just wrong.

For Freestyle turn abuse, maybe no points reset (or maybe still have that), but stripped of freestyle and team medals only. I don't know about the other settings.
I would love for you to expound here. I was looking for the rule for this but couldn't find it.

Just some thoughts I have. Oh, I'll put one more out there. I don't like adding much discretion to the C&A mods ruling abilities (causes too much confusion/animosity already), but there is a case to be made for allowing this as an instrument of discretionary punishment. Perhaps the true farmer, who is sending PMs to ?s and schooling them gets the point reset, ban/buyback option AND the medal stripping; whereas, someone who just set up a high percentage of games that happen to be joined by ?s gets some combination, but not all, of the above.
First part maybe if more defined rules appear. Second part not, see above.

Thanks,

J







ps

this is an awful suggestion...i got a guilty verdict of game throwing...should i have been stripped of all my medals for this?

as a side note, i never threw any games so this would only have compounded the annoyance of being found guilty of something i didnt do

...

Lx

PS: Don't they all say they're innocent?

The problem is that some are ...
Which is why if some form of this is implemented, it should be strictly regulated and should be used with well defined rules that do not require subjectivity from the presiding mod.

[Symmetry]

...
Which is why if some form of this is implemented, it should be strictly regulated and should be used with well defined rules that do not require subjectivity from the presiding mod.

Such a system is in place already, no? Regarding punishments already in place?

I don't see your point.

[Woodruff]

Players found guilty of cheating should be stripped of their medals

Looking at a few recent cases where players who have been cheating over a fairly sustained period of time have been caught out, there's a fair amount of consensus that the punishments are kind of light for premium players who cheat.

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

A minor thing, but if a player has been cheating to gain points, it seems fair that they be stripped of the medals they have. If they're good enough to earn them under fair circumstances, they'll win them back under fair terms.

This suggestion is aimed at premium players only, and thus proposing an unbalanced punishment system. It would have to be implemented universally if at all.

Only premium players gain medals? I honestly did not realize that. I don't think it's true...is it?

[patrickaa317]

Considering that I've accounted for more than $300 in tournament prizes alone for my tournaments, never mind the couple of years I was a premium myself, I'll have to suggest that the reason I am a silver rank has a lot more to do with a certain suggestion I posed in this forum than it does with anything else.

Click image to enlarge.

[Woodruff]

Considering that I've accounted for more than $300 in tournament prizes alone for my tournaments, never mind the couple of years I was a premium myself, I'll have to suggest that the reason I am a silver rank has a lot more to do with a certain suggestion I posed in this forum than it does with anything else.

Click image to enlarge.

I'm not looking for praise, I am pointing out that the way the site is currently being run has convinced me that I don't want to support it financially any longer, but I do want to stay here and try to correct the ship so that it can once again be a site I would be happy to financially support. I was simply pointing out to you that your presumptions about my non-premium status (coming across to me that either I am cheap or don't care about the site) were likely in error.

But I see by your condescending response that you would prefer to just stick with whatever presumptions you had made anyway.

[patrickaa317]

Considering that I've accounted for more than $300 in tournament prizes alone for my tournaments, never mind the couple of years I was a premium myself, I'll have to suggest that the reason I am a silver rank has a lot more to do with a certain suggestion I posed in this forum than it does with anything else.

I'm not looking for praise, I am pointing out that the way the site is currently being run has convinced me that I don't want to support it financially any longer, but I do want to stay here and try to correct the ship so that it can once again be a site I would be happy to financially support. I was simply pointing out to you that your presumptions about my non-premium status (coming across to me that either I am cheap or don't care about the site) were likely in error.

But I see by your condescending response that you would prefer to just stick with whatever presumptions you had made anyway.

I didn't presume anything, I knew you used to be premium. I know you won't put your money in the site. I was just saying it's kinda ironic that you say "for your money, something on the site wouldn't be obvious enough." on a site that costs you know money.

It's like getting a free slurpee at 7-11 and saying "for my money, you think they'd be better". Even though you may have spent $7,000 in the store before, it doesn't matter because the current product you speak of was/is free. The past money you spent is essentially irrelevant to the situation.

[Woodruff]

Considering that I've accounted for more than $300 in tournament prizes alone for my tournaments, never mind the couple of years I was a premium myself, I'll have to suggest that the reason I am a silver rank has a lot more to do with a certain suggestion I posed in this forum than it does with anything else.

I'm not looking for praise, I am pointing out that the way the site is currently being run has convinced me that I don't want to support it financially any longer, but I do want to stay here and try to correct the ship so that it can once again be a site I would be happy to financially support. I was simply pointing out to you that your presumptions about my non-premium status (coming across to me that either I am cheap or don't care about the site) were likely in error.

But I see by your condescending response that you would prefer to just stick with whatever presumptions you had made anyway.

I didn't presume anything, I knew you used to be premium. I know you won't put your money in the site. I was just saying it's kinda ironic that you say "for your money, something on the site wouldn't be obvious enough." on a site that costs you know money.

It's like getting a free slurpee at 7-11 and saying "for my money, you think they'd be better". Even though you may have spent $7,000 in the store before, it doesn't matter because the current product you speak of was/is free. The past money you spent is essentially irrelevant to the situation.

"For my money" is simply an expression that generally relates as "In my view".

[patrickaa317]

I'm not looking for praise, I am pointing out that the way the site is currently being run has convinced me that I don't want to support it financially any longer, but I do want to stay here and try to correct the ship so that it can once again be a site I would be happy to financially support. I was simply pointing out to you that your presumptions about my non-premium status (coming across to me that either I am cheap or don't care about the site) were likely in error.

But I see by your condescending response that you would prefer to just stick with whatever presumptions you had made anyway.

I didn't presume anything, I knew you used to be premium. I know you won't put your money in the site. I was just saying it's kinda ironic that you say "for your money, something on the site wouldn't be obvious enough." on a site that costs you know money.

It's like getting a free slurpee at 7-11 and saying "for my money, you think they'd be better". Even though you may have spent $7,000 in the store before, it doesn't matter because the current product you speak of was/is free. The past money you spent is essentially irrelevant to the situation.

"For my money" is simply an expression that generally relates as "In my view".

Yes it is. That's why I was playing on the irony of the comment. Then you got all defensive and started talking about how much money you put in the site and how you were making a one man stand about not buying up until some changes are made.

[Woodruff]

I'm not looking for praise, I am pointing out that the way the site is currently being run has convinced me that I don't want to support it financially any longer, but I do want to stay here and try to correct the ship so that it can once again be a site I would be happy to financially support. I was simply pointing out to you that your presumptions about my non-premium status (coming across to me that either I am cheap or don't care about the site) were likely in error.

But I see by your condescending response that you would prefer to just stick with whatever presumptions you had made anyway.

I didn't presume anything, I knew you used to be premium. I know you won't put your money in the site. I was just saying it's kinda ironic that you say "for your money, something on the site wouldn't be obvious enough." on a site that costs you know money.

It's like getting a free slurpee at 7-11 and saying "for my money, you think they'd be better". Even though you may have spent $7,000 in the store before, it doesn't matter because the current product you speak of was/is free. The past money you spent is essentially irrelevant to the situation.

"For my money" is simply an expression that generally relates as "In my view".

Yes it is. That's why I was playing on the irony of the comment. Then you got all defensive and started talking about how much money you put in the site and how you were making a one man stand about not buying up until some changes are made.

It's hardly a one man stand, as there are quite a number of us. But regardless, we've derailed this enough.

[Symmetry]

I'm not looking for praise, I am pointing out that the way the site is currently being run has convinced me that I don't want to support it financially any longer, but I do want to stay here and try to correct the ship so that it can once again be a site I would be happy to financially support. I was simply pointing out to you that your presumptions about my non-premium status (coming across to me that either I am cheap or don't care about the site) were likely in error.

But I see by your condescending response that you would prefer to just stick with whatever presumptions you had made anyway.

I didn't presume anything, I knew you used to be premium. I know you won't put your money in the site. I was just saying it's kinda ironic that you say "for your money, something on the site wouldn't be obvious enough." on a site that costs you know money.

It's like getting a free slurpee at 7-11 and saying "for my money, you think they'd be better". Even though you may have spent $7,000 in the store before, it doesn't matter because the current product you speak of was/is free. The past money you spent is essentially irrelevant to the situation.

"For my money" is simply an expression that generally relates as "In my view".

Yes it is. That's why I was playing on the irony of the comment. Then you got all defensive and started talking about how much money you put in the site and how you were making a one man stand about not buying up until some changes are made.

Do you have a suggestion? You can always PM woody if you want to play around.

[patrickaa317]

I'm not looking for praise, I am pointing out that the way the site is currently being run has convinced me that I don't want to support it financially any longer, but I do want to stay here and try to correct the ship so that it can once again be a site I would be happy to financially support. I was simply pointing out to you that your presumptions about my non-premium status (coming across to me that either I am cheap or don't care about the site) were likely in error.

But I see by your condescending response that you would prefer to just stick with whatever presumptions you had made anyway.

I didn't presume anything, I knew you used to be premium. I know you won't put your money in the site. I was just saying it's kinda ironic that you say "for your money, something on the site wouldn't be obvious enough." on a site that costs you know money.

It's like getting a free slurpee at 7-11 and saying "for my money, you think they'd be better". Even though you may have spent $7,000 in the store before, it doesn't matter because the current product you speak of was/is free. The past money you spent is essentially irrelevant to the situation.

"For my money" is simply an expression that generally relates as "In my view".

Yes it is. That's why I was playing on the irony of the comment. Then you got all defensive and started talking about how much money you put in the site and how you were making a one man stand about not buying up until some changes are made.

Do you have a suggestion? You can always PM woody if you want to play around.

Did you read the suggestion that I posted and Woody said it wasn't good enough for his money?

[Symmetry]

I did Pat, and I read his explanation, which seems fair, and up to him. The suggestions forum is kind of for suggestions on how to make the site better. Feel free to PM Woody if you want to bicker with him personally, or post something in the Off Topics if you want an audience, is all I'm saying.

[patrickaa317]

I did Pat, and I read his explanation, which seems fair, and up to him. The suggestions forum is kind of for suggestions on how to make the site better. Feel free to PM Woody if you want to bicker with him personally, or post something in the Off Topics if you want an audience, is all I'm saying.

Feel free to PM me if you want to bicker, the conversation between woody and I was done but now you seem to want to bicker with me.

[Symmetry]

I did Pat, and I read his explanation, which seems fair, and up to him. The suggestions forum is kind of for suggestions on how to make the site better. Feel free to PM Woody if you want to bicker with him personally, or post something in the Off Topics if you want an audience, is all I'm saying.

Feel free to PM me if you want to bicker, the conversation between woody and I was done but now you seem to want to bicker with me.

I do not, I'd like your input, and you're welcome to PM me or post on my wall.

[patrickaa317]

This is my thought:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171&start=60#p3785163

[Symmetry]

This is my thought:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171&start=60#p3785163

Ok, I think we've dealt with that one then.

[patrickaa317]

This is my thought:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171&start=60#p3785163

Ok, I think we've dealt with that one then.

Woody gave input, noone else

[Symmetry]

This is my thought:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171&start=60#p3785163

Ok, I think we've dealt with that one then.

Woody gave input, noone else

Then likely nobody else thought it a good idea. I'm sorry if there was no chorus of people objecting to your suggestion within a suggestion, but there are other avenues open to you if you want to push for an asterisk, or argue with Woody, or myself.

Would it be fair to ask you to bring this back on topic, and ask that you use one of the many offers for reasonable discussion that have been suggested to you?

[patrickaa317]

This is my thought:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170171&start=60#p3785163

Ok, I think we've dealt with that one then.

Woody gave input, noone else

Then likely nobody else thought it a good idea. I'm sorry if there was no chorus of people objecting to your suggestion within a suggestion, but there are other avenues open to you if you want to push for an asterisk, or argue with Woody, or myself.

Would it be fair to ask you to bring this back on topic, and ask that you use one of the many offers for reasonable discussion that have been suggested to you?

Yeah, I was done with the topic until you started hounding me to provide some input which I already have. And just so you know, if you quote me again asking me to keep it on topic, I'm going to reply again telling you what is already been said or pointed out.

[Symmetry]

Fair enough, so back on topic (in general)...

[jefjef]

From the OPs posted suggestion:

there's a fair amount of consensus that the punishments are kind of light for premium players who cheat.

So was this sugg created out of disdain for premium players? Huh.

[SirSebstar]

I didn't know getting stripped of your premium is considered light... or getting website bans.

Peruse the C&A forums, you'll see the argument made.

Anyway, medal stripping seems like a good secondary punishment.

We could also tell their mom, or boss...
I fail to see how removing medals unrelated to the cheating action can be construed as anything but spite?!

IF someone would cheat to gain a particular medal, having obtained said medal, and then buying back after being found a multi, yes THEN I can see a direct lick and it could be worth it.
However is someone is simply, (for one reason or another) a cheating idiot, then i fail to see its relevance.

also, although I am opposed, can you elaborate....?! Do you want player to loose all posibilities of them having/gaining medals, or do you want to remove the count of the medals. or... well your goal/ means is unclear to me.

[Symmetry]

From the OPs posted suggestion:

there's a fair amount of consensus that the punishments are kind of light for premium players who cheat.

So was this sugg created out of disdain for premium players? Huh.

That's a fair criticism, and I hope that my position has been clearly altered from the OP that asked for discussion of the topic. I do think the punishments tend to be light for premium players, but then they've paid for a lighter punishment. This suggestion seems more like an equal punishment, if that makes sense.

Medals earned unfairly, regardless of premium or freemium, would be stripped equally from cheaters.