.com Forum · Alpha Dog Forum

oh crikey! (-: would one solution be for moderaters the be more clearly identifiable in order to manage their duties in curbing problem users. another idea could be to lower the retirement age of showable digi dogs to 100 days,withe full retirement of 120 days. just an opinion. voortrekker

I dont think SD has moderators. Although it's not a bad idea. For the most part, Jeff handles everything and does a fine job of it.

I dont think I understand what you're saying in regards to retirement.

-Four

with the other dog game i,ve been playing the competition dogs cannot be shown or bred beyond 100 days and are retired between 101 & 120 days.

-----
Last edited by voortrekker on 7/11/2014 11:12:29 PM

-----
Last edited by voortrekker on 7/11/2014 11:22:28 PM

We use to have mods. They would be listed when you went to the forum page. There were different mods for different threads. I remember Sylence (the most hilarious guy around, miss his adorable face) as the mod for the Banner Making Thread. I'm not sure what was the power of a kid besides closing/locking threads ? I remember Lisa, use to help out a lot, but haven't heard much of her.. There was also another guy too, maybe Nick or something (or maybe this one is just in my head) ? This was a long time ago...

YES! This user has been abusing the system for as long as I can remember. Jeff has looked into the matter before, however the user resumed their old ways soon after and haven't been stopped since. It's not fair for all of the breeders who stick to the rules of the game.

I remember the mods too... I guess Laura isn't working on this site either anymore?

-----
Last edited by Leotyde Kennels on 7/12/2014 11:21:00 AM

I don't want a feature implanted to punish everyone because of one player.

-----
Last edited by Shadowstorm Kennels on 7/12/2014 12:40:09 PM

See, I don't see this as punishing users. I see it as adding a safeguard on a feature so that it will be used IN THE INTENDED FASHION.

For many years, we didn't have an un-do FH button. If you FH'd it, it was GONE and Jeff might undo one every now and then for you, but it wasn't, and never was designed to be a central part of the game. It was designed to be used RARELY.

Limiting it so it can't be abused in this manner, really doesn't take away from it's intended function, and brings the game in line with the way it was meant to be used. un-do FH is not a feature to hep you manage your kennel on a daily basis, it shouldn't be being used often. It's an emergency feature added so Jeff wouldn't have to keep reversing for folks. To make our lives easier.

Limiting it to say, 3 a day, or not allowing reclamation that will take you over your kennel limit, is in line with this usage and shouldn't pose a hardship on anyone who is using this feature correctly- or even those who use it a bit more often than they should. But it WILL stop this method of cheating.

While I do think taking away the unFH feature entirely would be needlessly punishing the entire userbase (not to mention adding unneeded work for Jeff), I'm sticking to the idea that limiting it so you can't use it if it takes you over your kennel limit isn't really punishing regular players of the game. I know when I go over my limit, pretty much the first thing I do is go and FH dogs I don't need... and I eventually just paid the money to increase my limit to 35 dogs.

In the event of being over the limit and you FH a dog and then change your mind about it, then just FH the one you DID want to get rid of, and then unFH the mistake. If you're over your limit, you know you need to be rid of X number of dogs, so the only difference is that you need to FH other dogs to make room for unFHing one you got rid of by mistake.

I very much agree with Taranis.

I suppose I am open to anything that will level the playing field and stop taking away advantages for the other players. We all pay the same money and no extra amount buys one more privledges over another. I just wanna see something done. Obviously trying to talk to her and reporting her to Jeff is not getting her to stop bending rules.

It isn't fair that Jeff should have to babysit someone all the time either.

-Four

If this individual has been cheating for so long, why hasn't the account been terminated?

That's the big question.

Exactly. That is what I am trying (as are many of us) to get to the bottom of.

-Four

But is it cheating if she is doing something that is within the limits of the game features? She is working around the rules for sure and I think we all agree that she's not playing within the spirit of the game.

However, from a business perspective, she is working the game within the confines of the rules and game set up. There is no limit on how and when the un FH feature is used.

That said, if I owned the game, I'd fix that loophole

Good question, Kalynda.

I think that it is a matter of degree. It would appear that this person has way over the limit to the extent that they are possibly gaining a significant advantage over others and they are using the ‘loophole’ on a regular basis.

I say “degree” because if someone uses this ‘loophole’ to lower their count by 2 or 3 dogs once in a while to work around a temporary condition, the impact on others is minimal if at all. If they are working on a project – sources, colours, whatever – and not really competing, the impact on others is likely insignificant. At that level I do not think this impacts anyone although some “purists” may still consider it cheating. And I repeat, it’s a matter of degree – if someone is flipping 20 or 30 dogs back and forth on a regular basis, it’s abusing the facility even if not technically ‘cheating’.

Now, I have suggested a way of dealing with the over-populated elsewhere and previously. I think it is a fairer method and that is a surcharge on the feed bill for being over - $1.00 per dog per day, or any other amount that is deemed fair and effective. It could be looked on as a charge for boarding your excess at “Jeff’s Boarding Kennel”.

The additional funds could then be redistributed to everyone else who is currently not over-populated via salary or even as a dividend from “Jeff’s Boarding Kennel”. It could even be an escalating surcharge $1 for each of the first 3 over, $2 each if you are over by 4 or more, $5 each if you are over by 10 and so on. Downside – it will involve a little more programming.

I'm curious if there has been any response from Jeff on this matter? He doesn't seem to be one who takes cheating lightly. FWIW, not allowing the undo-FH feature when a kennel is over limit is something I would approve of as well. I honestly didn't even consider using it as a loophole to keep over my kennel limit (I'm sure that others haven't either) but now that it's been brought up, it will probably become much more common.

Is something going to be done about this or not? This thread has been open for quite some time.

I believe the public agrees that this is cheating and needs dealt with.

-Four

Did you contact Jeff about this?

Multiple times.

would there be more to this story than one might assume.^=^