Re: Cheating: What it is, and why you shouldn't do
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:48 pm
I'm aware of what he's saying and I'm also aware of what he's insinuating.Jimmy Gough wrote:I think he trying to say they love number attacks.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
I'm aware of what he's saying and I'm also aware of what he's insinuating.Jimmy Gough wrote:I think he trying to say they love number attacks.
Super Super Supee?Ben Hunter wrote:You know. Supee.Douglas Wilson wrote:Who's Supee?
Indeed, it's taken quite a Supee twist.Paul Howe wrote:I'm quite impressed at the direction this thread's taken without any input from Jason Larsen.
Yes, he's clearly been cheating. He's been issued a warning and will be banned if this continues. I have to admit that I've been a bit slack with monitoring the Cheatomatic lately because it seems like people had moved on from such blatant dishonesty, but I guess there's always one.Lloyd Pettet wrote:Just a query, I know I don't really post often but the player andrew clouston has been pretty dodgy... http://www.apterous.org/searchuser.php? ... sensible=1 he had registered 6 times (unless there are 6 seperate Andrew Cloustons). In junior recently he had gone from http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=71410 to http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=130618, only gets beaten by declaring invalid words or on the conundrum, he never declares a lesser valid word, and now has supplemented everything with a max duel.
Safe?
See Derek's earlier post.Marc Meakin wrote:Seems like the worlds worst cheater, seeing as he has a played 6 lost 6 record.
Not a great deal you can do, Simon. I can only really suggest two courses of action:Simon Le Fort wrote:I enjoy the game but I also enjoy the ratings system and would love to climb out of the 800s. With these matches secured as victories - or running away from inevitable beatings - I'd be in the 900s.
Has anyone got any advice for me?
At some point I will add some kind of "adjudication" feature. But it's worth mentioning that the majority of players who do this kind of thing have not played the 11 games necessary for an official rating, and therefore the difference that the result would have made to your rating is minimal.Simon Le Fort wrote: I enjoy the game but I also enjoy the ratings system and would love to climb out of the 800s. With these matches secured as victories - or running away from inevitable beatings - I'd be in the 900s.
A-lolJimBentley wrote:Not a great deal you can do, Simon. I can only really suggest two courses of action:Simon Le Fort wrote:I enjoy the game but I also enjoy the ratings system and would love to climb out of the 800s. With these matches secured as victories - or running away from inevitable beatings - I'd be in the 900s.
Has anyone got any advice for me?
1. Remember their names and don't play them again
or
2. Remember their names and don't play them again, then track them down by tracing their IP address and hacking into their ISP's records to get their real name and address, then go round and burn their house down. FIRE CLEANSES ALL.
PIssing myselfJimBentley wrote:then go round and burn their house down. FIRE CLEANSES ALL.
He might be good at Touchdown.Matt Morrison wrote:I bet you hypocrites would still give Thierry Henry a game if he logged on.
Yes but make sure the house is empty first and my colleagues are made aware of this on arrival.Ben Hunter wrote:PIssing myselfJimBentley wrote:then go round and burn their house down. FIRE CLEANSES ALL.
He recently did the same after 13 rounds against me. I can't recall how many points I was ahead, but I did shout an expletive about him in Aptochat before eventually leaving.Eoin Monaghan wrote:Martin Smith left after he was 81-64 down after 12 rounds against me.
Why would you need to know if Ben is peeing uncontrollably?Philip Jarvis wrote:Yes but make sure the house is empty first and my colleagues are made aware of this on arrival.Ben Hunter wrote:PIssing myselfJimBentley wrote:then go round and burn their house down. FIRE CLEANSES ALL.
In case a supplementary water supply is required.Kai Laddiman wrote:Why would you need to know if Ben is peeing uncontrollably?
Cos people keep playing him. I stopped a while back.John Gillies wrote:How does he keep getting away with this?
You think that's bad?John Gillies wrote:Hi,
I was just playing Lancelot Wyse and was well up. He said "this is killing me" and promptly left the room. I'm getting really sick of people doing this. How does he keep getting away with this?
Were you masturbating? He doesn't like masturbation.Eoin Monaghan wrote:You think that's bad?John Gillies wrote:Hi,
I was just playing Lancelot Wyse and was well up. He said "this is killing me" and promptly left the room. I'm getting really sick of people doing this. How does he keep getting away with this?
Richard Brittain challenged me to a conundrum attack. I go 100-20 up after 16 rounds and what does he say:
Sorry, I never thought when I challenged you, I do hate conundrum attacks then he said cheers and just left. And he won a series? Talk about bad sportsmanship. He can GANDISEEG his way home cos I'm never playing him again the cheater.
When I play and people watch (which isn't often) they always chirp in with suggestions. It's pretty much the opposite of cheating; it's near impossible to play well when all you can hear are a thousand misspelled or invalid words (each one six letters long or less).Simon Le Fort wrote:Although the cheats are a real frustration, one event did make me smile.
I was playing one of the higher rated ladies, and a good hiding she was giving me. In the chat I said words to the effect: "I've got 4 noisy Italians watching over my shoulder, all trying to tell me and each other what to do, hard to concentrate."
Back came the reply: "I hope they're not helping you."
Says I, "Does it look like it at 20-65?"
Not specifically you, but that game we had because anyone might view it, but also generally. And I've never maxed the first eight letters before. Sorry if it came across that way.Ian Dent wrote:Are you talking about me?
If he does cheat, he hides it pretty well. The only suspicion I could have is that he is a pretty inconsistent spotter from what I've seen.Adam Gillard wrote:Charlie and the moderation team (ahem) may have evidence to the contrary, but I don't think James Nguyen is a cheat. I'm surprised that people are jumping on the cheating bandwagon (unless there's some evidence I'm missing). Maybe we should have a poll to see what people think. I know at least one other person agrees with me (excluding James himself).
Yup, I am so inconsistent that I do worry that sometimes. I can go from averaging 2 maxes one day to 8 maxes the next.Gavin Chipper wrote:Does anyone else get paranoid that other people might think you're cheating when you're doing better than usual?
I can do that in an hour. Possibly related to the amount of caffeine and/or nicotine in my system at any given time.Dan Abrey wrote:Yup, I am so inconsistent that I do worry that sometimes. I can go from averaging 2 maxes one day to 8 maxes the next.Gavin Chipper wrote:Does anyone else get paranoid that other people might think you're cheating when you're doing better than usual?
I don't see how that's necessarily cheating. There's nothing stopping someone on the show from writing down their 75 times table, say, when they first sit down and then use it throughout the episode.Gavin Chipper wrote:Presumably it's cheating to have a list of your tables out in front of you when doing numbers games. But sometimes I write stuff down during the round, so is it cheating if something I've written from a previous round happens to help me in a later round, although I may not intentionally look at it? You might think it would be pretty rare but I've been playing nasty numbers and I haven't learnt my 87 times table yet.
Just to add it would be cheating if you went on the show with pre-prepared lists of words and stems and kept them with you. It isn't cheating if you wrote them down from memory.Simon Myers wrote: I don't see how that's necessarily cheating. There's nothing stopping someone on the show from writing down their 75 times table, say, when they first sit down and then use it throughout the episode.
You could extend the same argument to things like stems, for example, but it's much easier for that sort of thing to be abused at home (whole notebooks full of stems etc) compared to on the show (a probably useless memory-dump of a few choice stems).
I am fairly sure Stuart Earl did this on the show.Simon Myers wrote:I don't see how that's necessarily cheating. There's nothing stopping someone on the show from writing down their 75 times table, say, when they first sit down and then use it throughout the episode.Gavin Chipper wrote:Presumably it's cheating to have a list of your tables out in front of you when doing numbers games. But sometimes I write stuff down during the round, so is it cheating if something I've written from a previous round happens to help me in a later round, although I may not intentionally look at it? You might think it would be pretty rare but I've been playing nasty numbers and I haven't learnt my 87 times table yet.
You could extend the same argument to things like stems, for example, but it's much easier for that sort of thing to be abused at home (whole notebooks full of stems etc) compared to on the show (a probably useless memory-dump of a few choice stems).
Exactly. I'm pretty sure this has come up before, and I think Damian may even have confirmed this. I think there was someone who, as soon as they got to their seat, wrote LEOTARDS in large capital letters on a piece of paper and followed it up with the 75 times table.Kirk Bevins wrote:Just to add it would be cheating if you went on the show with pre-prepared lists of words and stems and kept them with you. It isn't cheating if you wrote them down from memory.
I don't think he's cheating but he improved VERY quickly which is probably what causes alarm in certain folk...Ian Volante wrote:If he does cheat, he hides it pretty well. The only suspicion I could have is that he is a pretty inconsistent spotter from what I've seen.Adam Gillard wrote:Charlie and the moderation team (ahem) may have evidence to the contrary, but I don't think James Nguyen is a cheat. I'm surprised that people are jumping on the cheating bandwagon (unless there's some evidence I'm missing). Maybe we should have a poll to see what people think. I know at least one other person agrees with me (excluding James himself).
In that case I think he's cheating.Charlie Reams wrote:He told me himself that he's cheated in the past.
Hi, Nick.Nick Boldock wrote:I don't think he's cheating but he improved VERY quickly which is probably what causes alarm in certain folk...Ian Volante wrote:If he does cheat, he hides it pretty well. The only suspicion I could have is that he is a pretty inconsistent spotter from what I've seen.Adam Gillard wrote:Charlie and the moderation team (ahem) may have evidence to the contrary, but I don't think James Nguyen is a cheat. I'm surprised that people are jumping on the cheating bandwagon (unless there's some evidence I'm missing). Maybe we should have a poll to see what people think. I know at least one other person agrees with me (excluding James himself).
Here's my first game against him - http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=316242
You'll notice he wasn't just bad, he was very bad indeed.
Played him twice since then and the standard was in a different league (lost both albeit not by much in either case) including a ridiculous conundrum in the last one (just now).
Like I say, I wouldn't say he was cheating but I can certainly see why suspicions have been raised.
Nice enough chap, mind.
If you're not cheating now, then you certainly didn't need to cheat before...James Nguyen wrote: Hi, Nick.
I don't post on the forums much, but I can say I definitely did not cheat in the games played against you.
Charlie's right, I did used to cheat, but I haven't for a while now.
I think James is probably focused completely on the game now, and is able to churn out 13, 14 and 15 games in every game because he is concentrating. Unlike before, where he had a pretty short temper, now he's a lot more calmer and it's reaping rewards for him.Nick Boldock wrote:If you're not cheating now, then you certainly didn't need to cheat before...James Nguyen wrote: Hi, Nick.
I don't post on the forums much, but I can say I definitely did not cheat in the games played against you.
Charlie's right, I did used to cheat, but I haven't for a while now.
What's fake? The name Steven Gerard? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that there are more than one person with the same name? And even if it is a fake name it's hardly cheating.
Should test it out by changing the Countdown clock music to something he won't like and see what happens.Mark James wrote:What's fake? The name Steven Gerard? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that there are more than one person with the same name? And even if it is a fake name it's hardly cheating.
+1Craig Beevers wrote:Should test it out by changing the Countdown clock music to something he won't like and see what happens.