Conquer Club

owenshooter wrote:

AndrewB wrote:Are you talking about sequential games, JR, and if yes, can you explain how exactly it can be misused?

i am wondering this myself, and i'm also wanting a game number where his game chat is cluttered with people declaring they are taking other peoples turns, since he is so against it. not doubting it is going on, just have never seen it, and it is pretty central to the resolution that blitz suggested...-0

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2238288

use this one for example. game is started and already in only the 2nd round, their teamate is making double the moves because of all of a sudden he is unable to play his turn. so sarcastically I said thanks for making 50% of the moves already for your team. to top it off, they probably already know each other in real life. So not only do they know each other, they make moves for each other. So I just simply add them to ignore and move on. The site is littered with players and examples like this one and im really losing interest in playing team games because I have no idea who I am even playing anymore. That is another reason why I do not believe that players with the same IP should be able to play with each other. You really have no idea who you are playing and the same player making all the moves for 1 team has a huge advantage. it has nothing to do with if your friends or family. its the fact that a huge percentage of these so called friends/family are making all the moves. Now I know Wicked said they can trace this very well and they wont tell me the "secrets", but I know there is no way there methods can be 100% accurate.

Soloman wrote:

wicked wrote:

Soloman wrote:You must really have no friends. You are possibly the most anti social player I have met. You hate everything involving people playing with friend and or family maybe we should get you a friend and then you might not be so negative. Anyone Want to Be Johnny's Friend???

Uncalled for Soloman.

I apologize Wicked it just seems he rarely hasanything nice to say and if it involves friends family or anyone outside of himself it is wrong to do.
My Point being I am on the fence on this issue as I see how abuse could occur(only in freestyle) but I having 5 children, 4 younger siblings, A fiancee and friends whom some of enjoy a good game of conquering and others do not and require my time when I am playing. This leaves me to needing someone to sub if I am playing a freestyle team game( I rarely play those anymore to busy) so my team does not suffer due to my having a busy life. While I can see the problem in freestyle for the opponents who are in a lot of cases
disorganized and do not know how to nor desire to coordinate with there teamates which means that if one person is covering they get destroyed quickly by someone with a singularly minded plan(although it may have all been on the team agenda) and thus complain/Accuse about person being a multi(I can say this from my own experience in coordinating games with my Bro)
But Since I rarely play teams anymore as I stated I will leave the debate to those more deeply involved and not take anymore mean yet probably accurate shots at Johnny. Whatever you Guys decide I will abide by happy Conquering all

than you need to set up and play games that meet your life requirements. dont set yourself up for a situation you cant suceed at and than use that for an excuse that you need your family to correct.

Are you saying that having a Babysitter is wrong under any circumstance Rocket? And that we should not join games if we can not play a round in a game ?

jiminski wrote:Are you saying that having a Babysitter is wrong under any circumstance Rocket? And that we should not join games if we can not play a round in a game ?

you can read in between the lines and take the comment however you like. there are speed games now available to play if you cant make your moves in a timely manner. I suggest that any player that cant make his move for whatever reason they can come with, than should miss a turn. An account sitter can still be a friend/family that lives with the player that does not have an active account. if I want to take the weekend off and travel, than I can call one of my buddies that does not play on here and have him take my turns. so that does not eliminate a sitter 100%. that should cut down the abuse by 80% on this site and make the mods life alot easier. and if business decreases, than I say the decrease was due to players that were cheating that left the site .

JR, i for one play the majority of my games with people i know in REAL LIFE. yes, that includes fwblb and vace cooper, who are married and share an IP on one computer. get skype, and watch them take turns against you in games, if you don't believe that 2 people can share a computer and 2 seperate accounts. the whole basis of our mini-anti-clan is to play games with people that we know in REAL LIFE that we enjoy the company of, and can visit on messenger, aim, yahoo or skype during turns. and i don't think one person taking turns for both accounts has an advantage (EXCLUDING FREESTYLE), because i have been talked out of many over aggressive or bonehead moves by my clan mates on skype, chat engines or my phone. i don't know how you can expect to be competitive with someone on your team that you don't know or haven't at least played against a few times... doubles, teams, etc, are what they are, and if you don't know the person or communicate super-duper well, you have a pretty good chance of getting romped.-0

Jesus do you not get it wocket, people aren't like you and can spend their entire lifes on the computer every single day.


Personally babysitting by another player is always preferential to someone deadbeating. No-one should ever make a game for someone who is away but that's not what happened in this situation.

so in effect yes to both Rocket.

i think it's a little unnecessary to have a blanket ban on babysitters from within the site. i can see that freestyle should be more carefully watched. But then Freestyle has always attracted cheats and benders of the rules Rocket, you know this very well.
That is why i steer clear of all but Sequential!

the Clan and informal friend networks makes the perpetual demands of this ever ticking website, feasible; enabling you to maintain a high level of games (which, due to the 24hours given to play a turn, you require to feed the habit) in tandem with Real life demands.

To place the proviso that we should be able to account for our time for the duration of an entire game is a tad naive or even disingenuous. (i side with the latter, as i do not believe you can be the former) crikey some games go on for more than a year, I don't know where i'll be tomorrow morning

So to get rid of the small piece of relief which is offered by flexible babysitting rules, in favour of a culture of missed go's, is impractical and works to the detriment of fair and honest players! Players who do, I confess, go out once in a while.

Why should we have to bring in non members to look after our games?
it would be akin to having a dog and training your goldfish to bark and fetch the newspaper.

And if we are to say that we miss go's as a rule then all games become slower and more painful for everyone concerned... and for what? to be sure that a small percentage of Freestyle cheats don't cheat!?
you ask too much my friend.

So for me, the culture of good neighbourliness, which the babysitter usually typifies and engenders on this site, should be fostered and encouraged; not sullied and dissuaded!
It is one of the reasons that we make up the amazing yet horrendously addicted society of CC Dweebs which we do!

Cheats!? ban em! i am with you there but i say again, if my friend needs my assistance i will aid him all i can.
Not to help would be mean-spirited and against the nature of this fantastic place we call CC!

hehe i am welling up hear .. can you here the marching band!?

owenshooter wrote:and i don't think one person taking turns for both accounts has an advantage (EXCLUDING FREESTYLE)

I completely agree with the statement made, and I am yet to see the benefit of 1 player playing instead 2/3. I can see only the drawback.

Bad dice can happen in any game (as far as I can tell, that is what have happen in 2238288) but 1 player playing for all the players gains no benefit at all.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

AndrewB wrote:Are you talking about sequential games, JR, and if yes, can you explain how exactly it can be misused?

i am wondering this myself, and i'm also wanting a game number where his game chat is cluttered with people declaring they are taking other peoples turns, since he is so against it. not doubting it is going on, just have never seen it, and it is pretty central to the resolution that blitz suggested...-0

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2238288

You really have no idea who you are playing and the same player making all the moves for 1 team has a huge advantage.

This is absolutely your opinion and nothing more. Do not use opinion to back up an argument.

detlef wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

owenshooter wrote:i am wondering this myself, and i'm also wanting a game number where his game chat is cluttered with people declaring they are taking other peoples turns, since he is so against it. not doubting it is going on, just have never seen it, and it is pretty central to the resolution that blitz suggested...-0

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2238288

You really have no idea who you are playing and the same player making all the moves for 1 team has a huge advantage.

This is absolutely your opinion and nothing more. Do not use opinion to back up an argument.

Opinions are like arseholes... Everyone has one.

C>

AndrewB wrote:

owenshooter wrote:and i don't think one person taking turns for both accounts has an advantage (EXCLUDING FREESTYLE)

I completely agree with the statement made, and I am yet to see the benefit of 1 player playing instead 2/3. I can see only the drawback.

Bad dice can happen in any game (as far as I can tell, that is what have happen in 2238288) but 1 player playing for all the players gains no benefit at all.

So if one Colonels plays all 3 accounts and 2 of them are cooks, there is no benefit to this? Not saying it happens to that extent but it could ...

yeti_c wrote:Opinions are like arseholes... you might think it stinks, but mine's better than yours

Bruceswar wrote:

AndrewB wrote:

owenshooter wrote:and i don't think one person taking turns for both accounts has an advantage (EXCLUDING FREESTYLE)

I completely agree with the statement made, and I am yet to see the benefit of 1 player playing instead 2/3. I can see only the drawback.

Bad dice can happen in any game (as far as I can tell, that is what have happen in 2238288) but 1 player playing for all the players gains no benefit at all.

So if one Colonels plays all 3 accounts and 2 of them are cooks, there is no benefit to this? Not saying it happens to that extent but it could ...

The vagaries of the scoring system could mean that the 2 cooks are better team players than the colonel... but they also play a load of singles games - and they're crap at them and lose all the time... The Colonel only plays Team games with these 2 and when they play they always win... The 2 cooks could be carrying the Colonel as he only plays with these 2 cooks.

C.

Bruceswar wrote:

AndrewB wrote:

owenshooter wrote:and i don't think one person taking turns for both accounts has an advantage (EXCLUDING FREESTYLE)

I completely agree with the statement made, and I am yet to see the benefit of 1 player playing instead 2/3. I can see only the drawback.

Bad dice can happen in any game (as far as I can tell, that is what have happen in 2238288) but 1 player playing for all the players gains no benefit at all.

So if one Colonels plays all 3 accounts and 2 of them are cooks, there is no benefit to this? Not saying it happens to that extent but it could ...

Sure, of course there 'could' be a benefit; calculated to cheat the point handicap but if 2 cooks are willing to hand over password and complete control of their account to a colonel that shows a high level of trust.
With such respect and trust could the Colonel not just tell them exactly what to do and not risk the accusation?
Or would good organisation, based on a ranking command structure, be deemed as cheating too! (hehe i have actually heard this argument used many times so it is not so far fetched is it!)

Also a Babysitter may be on a magical hot-streak of dice taking over for another on a cold-streak!
Also a Babysitter may take their responsibility so seriously that it gives an advantage due to their attentiveness!.

But do we honestly want to make the allure and relentless devotion needed to play this god-forsaken game even less marriable to Real existence?... In my humble oppinion; bugger that!

blimey i take this game too seriously sometimes too! .... and I despise cheats! But a mate taking some go's for you is not cheating.
To propose that the site should discriminate against those who employ the odd babysitter for the convenience of all, in order to stop a tiny minority who abuse it? Well that is simply arse about face.
It's like incarcerating every male between the ages 16 and 28 because statistically they commit 90% of crime! (if you added 'Black' to the formula some would say it is already government policy.. Right on!)
It would very likely bring down crime but the cost is too high....

right i'm off to play all the go's in my Quad.. still losing.. back later!

by god, i say jim for pres of CC

i'm not reading this whole damned thread but i'll say this: if the current rule is that one can only have sitters when one will be away for 24 hours or more, i have a few problems w/ it.

1) how is this a rule? i've been here for a year and half and never heard it before

2) it assumes, very naively, that one will always forecast w/ perfect accuracy one's access to a computer. this is rubbish of course. how bout those times when you don't know when you'll be back from the bush, and you just let 2 or 3 friends know that they should watch your games and not let any turns run out? then you get back and log on, ooohhh nooooo, it hasn't been 24 hours, now you're a cheater! that's ludicrous.

the powers that be can't expect us to have 50 games going, living the life of CC addicts that you would have us to, then punish us when life gets in the way. it's safe to assume, i think, that the vast, vast majority of babysitting stems from an honest desire to have craploads of games, not miss turns, not annoy opponents, keep them all going, etc.

don't punish the good w/ the bad!

alternate solution: end freestyle altogether

Bruceswar wrote:

AndrewB wrote:

owenshooter wrote:and i don't think one person taking turns for both accounts has an advantage (EXCLUDING FREESTYLE)

I completely agree with the statement made, and I am yet to see the benefit of 1 player playing instead 2/3. I can see only the drawback.

Bad dice can happen in any game (as far as I can tell, that is what have happen in 2238288) but 1 player playing for all the players gains no benefit at all.

So if one Colonels plays all 3 accounts and 2 of them are cooks, there is no benefit to this? Not saying it happens to that extent but it could ...

This has already been discussed but, like jim says, it's a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Regardless of what restrictions are put on the game, some loser will always try to find a way to "cheat" the system. However, wouldn't what you're describing already be covered under multis? Essentially, what those who support restricting account sitting are saying is that there's no room at all in the middle. That, the second there's any wiggle room at all in this regard, we're all going to rush out and take over some noobs account and the entire team game concept will be shit. The simple fact is, many of us are already breaking this unwritten rule for entirely harmless reasons.

I freaking pay to come here and enjoy myself. I don't cheat, nor do I stretch the rules in some stupid desire to pile up points. I come here to play a version of Risk on various maps. I have a regular teammate whom I trust to take my moves and vice versa. I've got enough freaking rules that I have to follow in my daily life that have been put into place because some a-holes can't be trusted to do the right thing if simply left to themselves. Most of them quite simply have to be there because the consequences of not following them can be harmful to one's self or to others. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS! THIS IS A FREAKING ON-LINE GAME!

Now, this doesn't mean that all rules here should be cast aside. Rather that unless it can be shown that not enacting a rule will cause rampant cheating and, thus, decreased enjoyment by those of us who play fair, then we simply need to let it go. The only arguments that have been made for restricting account sitting for all team games have referenced theoretical and fringe cases where somebody might abuse it. Nobody has shown that this is an actual issue.

It's really that simple.

Bruceswar wrote:So if one Colonels plays all 3 accounts and 2 of them are cooks, there is no benefit to this? Not saying it happens to that extent but it could ...

But the benefit doesn't come from the fact that he takes the turns. It comes from the team cooperating and that has to be expected to happen anyway.

plus all that jiminski said...

when will this be decided? What is the thought process going on behind the scenes? Do the mods even read this thread for suggestions, or is their minds already made up? I need to know by May 15th, when my premium expires. It will really effect my game play, if I have been deemed a cheater.

Now I have to go and take Owen's and Ctwongs turns. Neither of them know what they are doing in my team games.

I can understand how one member taking turns for all can be used in devastating manner for freestyle team games.

Looking at the arguments presented here, I am in favour of game settings to allow players to choose unrestricted baby sitting option at the outset. Players who don't agree can simply select the other option. This can help to remove the possibility of unnecessary quarrels later on.

Personally, I don't have an issue with players from the other teams taking turns for one another. Even if one or more of their members simply decide not wanting to take turns, that is good enough a reason for me. I try to accommodate a wide variety of playing styles and if that can create a more challenging atmosphere for me, all the better.

This site is fun so lets keep it that way. We can do with more fun, less quarrels and as few rules as possible.

jbrettlip wrote:when will this be decided? What is the thought process going on behind the scenes? Do the mods even read this thread for suggestions, or is their minds already made up? I need to know by May 15th, when my premium expires. It will really effect my game play, if I have been deemed a cheater.

Now I have to go and take Owen's and Ctwongs turns. Neither of them know what they are doing in my team games.

you think this is the only long thread on the subject. not at all. I can not say what is transpiring in Mod headquarters but it is also a lengthy subject

Nephilim wrote:alternate solution: end freestyle altogether

Robinette wrote:

Nephilim wrote:alternate solution: end freestyle altogether

1 player making 3 moves in a triples sequential game is the same as moving in a freestyle game. he is just simply playing 3 moves at different times rather than all 3 at once. look at SkyT's games for perfect examples.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

Robinette wrote:

Nephilim wrote:alternate solution: end freestyle altogether

1 player making 3 moves in a triples sequential game is the same as moving in a freestyle game. he is just simply playing 3 moves at different times rather than all 3 at once. look at SkyT's games for perfect examples.

If we're going onto a debate about point abuse how about examining your games. How many games have you played against new recruits which have deadbeated hence giving you the game.

Lots and lots:

took me one try to find an example.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2315793

Now who has the underhand strategy?

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:1 player making 3 moves in a triples sequential game is the same as moving in a freestyle game. he is just simply playing 3 moves at different times rather than all 3 at once.

that is just asinine!! taking 3 turns in a freestyle game, by one person, simultaneously, before the other team can move, is completely different than one person taking three turns in a sequential game, and you know it. JR, i'm sorry, but that is absolute garbage, and you know it.-0

wait.. JR is ripping on clans for babysitting accounts and how they manage their team games.. and here he is a charter member of the new pa-ho-nix clan?? (you have to have seen the commercial to get that phoenix joke)... HYPOCRITE to the nth degree!!!-0