kou BAN

[kou]

Tue May 22, 2012 3:40 pm
kou,

Recently you have been involved in a rather large and obvious score pumping incidence in which you used your alternative accounts (such as kingp, kingq, and "king" followed by a number) to boost the rating of your main account, kou. As has been publicly announced, score pumping is strictly prohibited. Due to the vast amount of games you have score pumped (over twenty), the account "kou" must have its score reset to 1500. Additionally, you have been removed as a moderator of the Mission Sharing forum because of your acts. Please reply to this message once you have read its contents.

Nate




Tue May 29, 2012 3:24 pm
kou,

Your account, kou, has been hidden from the leaderboard due to pumping. While we would still love for you to be part of the game and community, you are strongly encouraged to abide by the established rules. After a week, you had not opened the PM I sent to you titled "Score pumping games", therefore not agreeing to the score reset. Howbeit, this incidence must progress, thus resulting in your account being hidden. You are very welcome to still agree to the score reset of "kou" if you would like your account to be capable of being visible on the leaderboard again.

Nate

[wonderer]

To bad nate didnt do that to lawerence back in the day. At least you wont be kicked out of van javas.

[kou]

wonderer wrote:

To bad nate didnt do that to lawerence back in the day. At least you wont be kicked out of van javas.

my maps will ban myself

[wonderer]

So you got caught cheating.

They let you keep your points.

They hide your account.

You can still play login

Does anyone else see problem with that?

[slimjimninja]

Well points don't do much good if no one can see them. I think it's fair.

[N@TE]

slimjimninja wrote:

Well points don't do much good if no one can see them. I think it's fair.

That's exactly the thought that we (the administrators) had when creating these rules. Score pumping is all about the leaderboard, correct? Therefore, hiding a player from the leaderboard removes their motive to score pump, at least for the most part.

wonderer wrote:

So you got caught cheating.

They let you keep your points.

They hide your account.

You can still play login

Does anyone else see problem with that?

This argument would have best been brought up over a year ago when the score pumping rules were first released. Since then, we have used that format for numerous score pumping incidences. If it is really a dire circumstance, then the rules could be slightly altered, but at this point, I'd rather not change the core score pumping rules. Although I noticed that you have challenged that rule earlier, calling it "some bull" and stating how it's too strict because some players who are accused of pumping may have not really pumped. That's a fair argument. However, if I am not mistaken, now you are saying that rule should be more strict. It seems to me that your opinion on this issue has drastically changed over the course of a year.

Natheless, the current rule is a compromise between your two arguments. For those that are falsely accused of pumping, the rule doesn't remove their hard-earned points. For those that are rightfully accused of pumping, the rule allows us to still take a strong initiative on the issue. If what you're arguing for is for those that indubitably pumped to be handled differently — more aggressively — than those whose pumping situations are more subjectable, that could lead to injustice and tyranny. As I've said before, you don't want tyranny within the administration. I hope that helps you understand the establishment of that rule.

[wonderer]

so you are reading this topic but you didnt mention anything about lawerance how many people accused him of cheating. but nothing happend to him.

Quote:

Since then, we have used that format for numerous score pumping incidences. If it is really a dire circumstance, then the rules could be slightly altered,

but yeah i guess it wasnt a big deal years ago when a admin was cheating.

it was and still some bull that if i dont agree with me being accused of pumping i shouldnt have to admit im pumping if i know im not pumping.

so is the kou account still being looked into?

cause by looking at the link you posted nate looks like kou should be taking a big hit since hes played more then 100 questionable game

ok so how can kou prove hes wasnt cheating?
im sure their was 3 different devices and kou was using one of them.
im sure you can understand its possible to have more then one ipod in your home.
im also sure the accounts kou was playing were new to the game.
im sure every new player doesnt know the rules of pumping.
im sure you seen people leave matches when they know they are about to lose.

if you think i changed over the years im not sure cause i still sound the same to me but. you are the admin and you did have the first and last words on the rules of pumping.

[KissFromARose]

kou wrote:

wonderer wrote:

To bad nate didnt do that to lawerence back in the day. At least you wont be kicked out of van javas.

my maps will ban myself

Read my message, then your problems done!

[N@TE]

wonderer wrote:

so you are reading this topic but you didnt mention anything about lawerance how many people accused him of cheating. but nothing happend to him.

To be honest, I don't remember a specific score pumping incidence with Lawrence. However, if you can provide me with a month (or months) and year that this occurred, I will give you an explanation of why this wasn't looked into.

wonderer wrote:

so is the kou account still being looked into?

cause by looking at the link you posted nate looks like kou should be taking a big hit since hes played more then 100 questionable game

The situation stands as what I wrote in the PMs kou posted. Kou has yet to agree to the deduction, thus being hidden from the leaderboard.

wonderer wrote:

ok so how can kou prove hes wasnt cheating?
im sure their was 3 different devices and kou was using one of them.
im sure you can understand its possible to have more then one ipod in your home.
im also sure the accounts kou was playing were new to the game.
im sure every new player doesnt know the rules of pumping.
im sure you seen people leave matches when they know they are about to lose.

A part of determining if a game was part of a score pumping incidence is analyzing the statistics of the game itself. The game statistics in this incidence really provide the vast majority of proof.

[wonderer]

The year and month thats to far to remember maybe Val might have it but you ban him for speaking out he might remember.

Do admin have a special search engines that will narrow down a thread with just the year and month? If not why would you ask only for that?

[trineroks]

If I remember correctly, Lawrence was under fire for making unfair maps, not pumping. The mappacks in question were suspended from multiplayer until he fixed them.

[wonderer]

trineroks wrote:

If I remember correctly, Lawrence was under fire for making unfair maps, not pumping. The mappacks in question were suspended from multiplayer until he fixed them.

So you do remember what happened. Since his maps got suspended and people accused him of making unfair maps and stealing points from anyone who played him.
Isn't that pumping or is it something lesser then pumping?

If lawerance got anY points from making unfair maps shouldnt he be treated like kou and be striped of his mod/ admin powers?

Or was Lawrence case different from kou's case. Cause I don't see a difference if both players stole points from other accounts.

[N@TE]

wonderer wrote:

trineroks wrote:

If I remember correctly, Lawrence was under fire for making unfair maps, not pumping. The mappacks in question were suspended from multiplayer until he fixed them.

So you do remember what happened. Since his maps got suspended and people accused him of making unfair maps and stealing points from anyone who played him.
Isn't that pumping or is it something lesser then pumping?

If lawerance got anY points from making unfair maps shouldnt he be treated like kou and be striped of his mod/ admin powers?

Or was Lawrence case different from kou's case. Cause I don't see a difference if both players stole points from other accounts.

Yes, that's right. He received large amounts of criticism for having supposedly cheating maps, but I don't believe he ever deliberately score pumped. I recall one specific map, possibly the most controversial, that I worked with him on called ".Primitive Wasteland" [Download link]. In this map, all players are given a Dominion, and the Dominions start off in a very small square. There are a few exits to that square. When a player navigates their Dominion to outside of the square and transform it to an HQ, they receive unlimited money. Otherwise, they would be restricted by limited funds (a little over $10,000). The controversy was that this could easily be exploited as a cheat if the user was not properly informed. As I recall, Lawrence originally mentioned this feature in the Mission Objectives, but nobody read those, so the solution was to mention it in an alert (a message on the bottom-left of the screen, for those that don't create maps) as well as put it in the Objectives.

[wonderer]

I guess in friends eyes he didn't cheat but the other people who played him and tried to beat him on his own map that he created. It looked like he was cheating.

[Duc Van Java]

wonderer wrote:

I guess in friends eyes he didn't cheat but the other people who played him and tried to beat him on his own map that he created. It looked like he was cheating.

u shud take my advice wondy...
Drop it!!!
There's nothing u really can do about it..
It's just a game.

[wonderer]

Duc Van Java wrote:

wonderer wrote:

I guess in friends eyes he didn't cheat but the other people who played him and tried to beat him on his own map that he created. It looked like he was cheating.

u shud take my advice wondy...
Drop it!!!
There's nothing u really can do about it..
It's just a game.

Yeah I heard that before and I also can tell it's game cause I can turn it off and on.
Iknow I can't do much but it feels good to get a reaction from anyone since this is a boring site. Anyways I'm just trying to catch people slipping.( like Nate and his months and dates request.)

[slimjimninja]

Lawrence's case is an old one. Why bother mentioning it now?

[wonderer]

If you studied or watched law and order you would see the lawyers bring up old cases to prove the accused person he was in his rights. Or try to convict a person on and old case cause new evadence. ( blaw blaw my spelling )

[N@TE]

Wonderer, I requested a specific month or range of months and a year in order to get an idea of what time period the situation had occurred. Over the years, Warfare Inc. has changed and progressed, albeit a bit slowly, so when you said it was "years ago", I was looking for a few key points in the WI timeline. Specifically, when Lawrence became a mod (September 2010), when Lawrence became an admin (October 2010), and when an official approach on attacking score pumping was established (February 2011). I can tell you that before the active admins at that time decided to finally establish the proper approach to attack score pumping, dealing with pumping was a huge mess. Everything was getting bottlenecked through Scott, and we weren't sure what to do in specific situations. Considering it was "years ago", this was most likely the case for why me talking to Lawrence solved the issue and why the issue wasn't escalated.

However, this is really getting off-topic. I understand your concern for a fair administration, wonderer, but I'd like for us to stay on topic.