The greatest dueling simulator on earth
https://forum.duelingbook.com/
Lil Oldman wrote:We did it bois, this thread is no more
d1234 wrote:Renji Asuka wrote:d1234 wrote:I won’t stop posting until it changes.
Not that hard, the punishment isn't going to change, you obviously don't know these 2 bullet points or refuse to understand them. At this point, I'm surprised the admins haven't banned you for the crap you're pulling. And FYI, this site IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
A. I have read those and completely understand them
B. The first, nothing that is against the rules happened on the account Dark Cyborg
C. The second, they may not be limited to the italicized print, but they are limited by the green non-italicized print
d1234 wrote:Lil Oldman wrote:We did it bois, this thread is no more
Nothing to do with you or anyone else, except Dark Cyborg and myself.
In case you are wondering about post A in that last post I said on that subject.
Christen57 wrote:d1234 wrote:Renji Asuka wrote:
Not that hard, the punishment isn't going to change, you obviously don't know these 2 bullet points or refuse to understand them. At this point, I'm surprised the admins haven't banned you for the crap you're pulling. And FYI, this site IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
A. I have read those and completely understand them
B. The first, nothing that is against the rules happened on the account Dark Cyborg
C. The second, they may not be limited to the italicized print, but they are limited by the green non-italicized print
You still won't read it fully. It says you are responsible for any rule-breaking that happens on your account and/or network.
Notice where it says "and/or network". That means you can also be held responsible for any rule-breaking that happens on your network, not just on your account.
There was rule-breaking going on on Dark Cyborg's network.
The rule-breaking was boosting.
Boosting involves repeatedly admitting defeat to gain experience illegitimately, which is what happened on Dark Cyborg's network, and Dark Cyborg himself admitted this, saying, and I quote, "a friend (his account is Rusty Bardiche) of mine went on another account on my computer while I wasn't around and tried to tank his rating to 69".
Someone admitted defeat repeatedly to gain experience illegitimately on Dark Cyborg's network.
The rules prohibit "Using multiple accounts, friends or other resources to gain illegitimate wins" which is exactly what happened. Someone went on Dark Cyborg's network and used an account, which is a resource, to gain illegitimate wins for other players by trying "to tank" their own rating.
Do you and Dark Cyborg still not understand this?
Genexwrecker wrote:We the admin team decide if any action requires x penalty.
greg503 wrote:So, Dark Cyborg's friend "negative boosts" by continuously admitting defeat in rated. This is clearly not playing rated in a legitimate manner and should be punished by removing the offender from the rated pool as seen in DB rules. However, this occurred on Dark Cyborg's network, according to the start of DB's rules, he is also responsible, and has thus received the same punishment, end of story.
Lil Oldman wrote:d1234 wrote:Lil Oldman wrote:We did it bois, this thread is no more
Nothing to do with you or anyone else, except Dark Cyborg and myself.
In case you are wondering about post A in that last post I said on that subject.
Was just joking lmao, like the memes of "why are people homeless, just buy a house - We did it bois, homelessness is no more"
Genexwrecker wrote:boosting is not harmless it unfairly affects the booster and everyone they come across. we would not allow such users to be in ranked.
d1234 wrote:Genexwrecker wrote:boosting is not harmless it unfairly affects the booster and everyone they come across. we would not allow such users to be in ranked.
When you join dueling book, you have a default rating, so the same thing can be said for joining duelingbook, and no one gets punished for that.
Dark Cyborg wrote:Genexwrecker wrote:they are both 100% boosting and not tolerated EVER.Dark Cyborg wrote:Nope. It is not classified as boosting. There is a clear difference between the two and what happened in my situation is not classified under boosting in the rules.
I tanked my rating without boosting the rating of my own account. And, I also tanked my rating without manipulating the duelist pool algorithm. Both can be proved by duelist records. I don't see how this is boosting if I did not violate either of these rules.
troglyte wrote:Dark Cyborg wrote:Genexwrecker wrote:they are both 100% boosting and not tolerated EVER.
I tanked my rating without boosting the rating of my own account. And, I also tanked my rating without manipulating the duelist pool algorithm. Both can be proved by duelist records. I don't see how this is boosting if I did not violate either of these rules.
The way he makes these statements furthers my theory that there is no "friend."
It's just him and his alt account. It was just a ploy to try to gain sympathy from the forum. Fortunately, it didn't work.
d1234 wrote:troglyte wrote:Dark Cyborg wrote:
I tanked my rating without boosting the rating of my own account. And, I also tanked my rating without manipulating the duelist pool algorithm. Both can be proved by duelist records. I don't see how this is boosting if I did not violate either of these rules.
The way he makes these statements furthers my theory that there is no "friend."
It's just him and his alt account. It was just a ploy to try to gain sympathy from the forum. Fortunately, it didn't work.
There is defiantly a friend.
Because if you look at both of there profiles, Rusty Bardice made an account after Dark Cyborg, AND Dark Cyborg has a decent rating, so why would he try to even them out, unless a friend wanted to have a better rating, so that brings us here.
troglyte wrote:d1234 wrote:troglyte wrote:
The way he makes these statements furthers my theory that there is no "friend."
It's just him and his alt account. It was just a ploy to try to gain sympathy from the forum. Fortunately, it didn't work.
There is defiantly a friend.
Because if you look at both of there profiles, Rusty Bardice made an account after Dark Cyborg, AND Dark Cyborg has a decent rating, so why would he try to even them out, unless a friend wanted to have a better rating, so that brings us here.
When the accounts were made is completely irrelevant. And all the difference in rating means is that he clearly no longer cared about the Rusty account.
troglyte wrote:Would you care to edit that question?
d1234 wrote:Christen57 wrote:d1234 wrote:A. I have read those and completely understand them
B. The first, nothing that is against the rules happened on the account Dark Cyborg
C. The second, they may not be limited to the italicized print, but they are limited by the green non-italicized print
You still won't read it fully. It says you are responsible for any rule-breaking that happens on your account and/or network.
Notice where it says "and/or network". That means you can also be held responsible for any rule-breaking that happens on your network, not just on your account.
There was rule-breaking going on on Dark Cyborg's network.
The rule-breaking was boosting.
Boosting involves repeatedly admitting defeat to gain experience illegitimately, which is what happened on Dark Cyborg's network, and Dark Cyborg himself admitted this, saying, and I quote, "a friend (his account is Rusty Bardiche) of mine went on another account on my computer while I wasn't around and tried to tank his rating to 69".
Someone admitted defeat repeatedly to gain experience illegitimately on Dark Cyborg's network.
The rules prohibit "Using multiple accounts, friends or other resources to gain illegitimate wins" which is exactly what happened. Someone went on Dark Cyborg's network and used an account, which is a resource, to gain illegitimate wins for other players by trying "to tank" their own rating.
Do you and Dark Cyborg still not understand this?
So if someone broke into your house, hacked into your internet, and broke Duelingbook rules, you would be responsible as well.
Christen57 wrote:d1234 wrote:Christen57 wrote:
You still won't read it fully. It says you are responsible for any rule-breaking that happens on your account and/or network.
Notice where it says "and/or network". That means you can also be held responsible for any rule-breaking that happens on your network, not just on your account.
There was rule-breaking going on on Dark Cyborg's network.
The rule-breaking was boosting.
Boosting involves repeatedly admitting defeat to gain experience illegitimately, which is what happened on Dark Cyborg's network, and Dark Cyborg himself admitted this, saying, and I quote, "a friend (his account is Rusty Bardiche) of mine went on another account on my computer while I wasn't around and tried to tank his rating to 69".
Someone admitted defeat repeatedly to gain experience illegitimately on Dark Cyborg's network.
The rules prohibit "Using multiple accounts, friends or other resources to gain illegitimate wins" which is exactly what happened. Someone went on Dark Cyborg's network and used an account, which is a resource, to gain illegitimate wins for other players by trying "to tank" their own rating.
Do you and Dark Cyborg still not understand this?
So if someone broke into your house, hacked into your internet, and broke Duelingbook rules, you would be responsible as well.
I don't get how this is supposed to refute my argument. Yes you are responsible for any rule-breaking on duelingbook that happens on your network as well as on your account, which is why you take measures to keep both of those safe from malicious users, such as password-protecting your account, your wi-fi, your computer, making sure you don't share the password to any of those with anyone else, as well as locking your doors to your home and having alarm systems and surveillance systems to increase safety and security.
The only way I could see someone "hacking" into a secure wi-fi would be brute-forcing, which would literally take months if not years to do since you're basically trying literally every possible password you can think of until one of them happens to be the right one.
