Point Dumping/Game Throwing - Karlo Veliki/RL_Orange[warned]

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

unwritten rules- updated

all originally started games must be completed in full without the benefit of other games being created and the winner of those determining who the winner is of the original.

[e_i_pi]

JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

I agree with this, there are a lot of cases in Esc games where even a double cash won't guarantee anything. Not sure how it's relevant though. There's nothing in the rules to say that build games need to be resolved with a rematch...

[AAFitz]

JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

I agree with this, there are a lot of cases in Esc games where even a double cash won't guarantee anything. Not sure how it's relevant though. There's nothing in the rules to say that build games need to be resolved with a rematch...

theres nothing in the rules that specifically say a rematch is illegal. I agree it could be considered point dumping, but the point dumping and thrown games was meant to stop people from dumping all their points which is when it was set up...and to keep people from helping their friends.

This is without a doubt a different situation, and I no doubt expect some clarification on what will be possible...but to suggest all that have used a second game to decide a first, or a third to decide the previous will be fine...

but im pretty sure thats gonna delete a hundred or two hundred people from the site right now, and probably even me....though im not sure.... ive been in countless that have suggested it though...

[ahunda]

unwritten rules- updated

all originally started games must be completed in full without the benefit of other games being created and the winner of those determining who the winner is of the original.

Trying to spoil the fun for all Escalating players now ?

There's nothing in the rules to say that build games need to be resolved with a rematch...

The real question is: Is there anything in the rules, that prevents / forbids it ?

[AAFitz]

ON this one...something very similar came very close to happening...and it was me who almost caused it: luckily, I am a good sitter

Game 3716398
ballenus 4.8
Beadle 4.9
Forefall suicided in this one, ..and about 5 others before he left..usually into me...often throwing the game
artur1
Chariot of Fire
Greycloak
Clearwater fl
AndrewB


ballenus: I've created a foggy esc. on this map. Pwd=no chariot.
2009-05-28 15:36:47 - ballenus: pwd = no chariot and game number is 4975485. In this one, we just do what we have done over the last 100 turns : take turn, drop and no attack...
2009-05-29 06:28:34 - Clearwater fl: I joined. We had some skirmishes with this game in a few rounds. Anyone willing to at least engage in small attacks or maneuvers LOL
2009-05-29 11:57:48 - AndrewB: in
2009-05-30 10:11:09 - Clearwater fl: beadle. I lost 10 and you lost 8
2009-05-30 11:29:37 - Beadle: in
2009-06-01 08:45:46 - ballenus: arthur, are you joining the tie break?
2009-06-01 23:20:21 - Beadle: Lets kill him!
2009-06-02 16:59:37 - artur1: sure
2009-06-03 08:05:08 - ballenus: ...but in the other game! no more attack here until we have a winner in the other game....
2009-06-03 20:14:46 - AndrewB: agreed
2009-06-20 17:18:08 - AndrewB: so... are you going to kill each other or deadbeat?
2009-06-21 16:30:27 - Clearwater fl: beadle could not kill all of your armies
2009-06-22 17:27:09 - Clearwater fl: this is fitz here for clear water, but i dont want to end this
2009-06-22 17:27:27 - Clearwater fl: hmmm maybe im not supposed to
2009-06-22 17:27:50 - Clearwater fl: glad i thought about this for a second

I almost ended the game by attacking everything, but it seemed an odd settup...and luckilly figured it out in time
technically though, that means I may have thrown the game...and dumped points...though not mine

[AndrewB]

Guys, who is getting silly here?

A tie breaker game were played in order to decide the outcome of a stalemate game.

It was done tonnes of time before and never ever was considered an "illegal" action.

The original rule clearly does not apply here. Rules are created to benefit players, not to make their life more cumbersome...

I officially admit, that I played several games before as a tie-breaker.

But I refuse to play a stalemate game. And never will. So i either will be "throwing points" rule break or "deliberate deadbeating".

If you punish RL for that, you should punish me too...

This is just damn silly

[AAFitz]

If you punish RL for that, you should punish me too...

This is just damn silly

Oh, dont worry, the list includes you in my thread, me...and a bunch of others...

Ill bet it doesnt include less regular players than it includes

[mkohary]

JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

That's not a true stalemate. As was mentioned before, in chess a stalemate denotes when neither player can make a move, either because it's not physically possible to make any move, or the same two moves will be cycled over and over again by each side. That simply doesn't happen in Risk - you can ALWAYS make a move. You may not WANT to make a move, but you CAN. It might be risky, but hey, that's why they call it Risk.

Those semantics aside, I don't like the idea of side games being played to break these so-called "stalemates". First, because of the reason given above, that there are no real stalemates in Risk. Second, because by playing side games, you are affecting scores beyond the initial game, and using that to determine the initial game which also affects scores. If this isn't against the rules, I think it should be.

[AAFitz]

JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

That's not a true stalemate. As was mentioned before, in chess a stalemate denotes when neither player can make a move, either because it's not physically possible to make any move, or the same two moves will be cycled over and over again by each side. That simply doesn't happen in Risk - you can ALWAYS make a move. You may not WANT to make a move, but you CAN. It might be risky, but hey, that's why they call it Risk.

Those semantics aside, I don't like the idea of side games being played to break these so-called "stalemates". First, because of the reason given above, that there are no real stalemates in Risk. Second, because by playing side games, you are affecting scores beyond the initial game, and using that to determine the initial game which also affects scores. If this isn't against the rules, I think it should be.

true, technically it is not a stalemate because they cannot make a move...but it is a stalemate, because they cannot make a good move...which, with good players is a stalemate.

technically most games of risk should never end... most end only because of stupid moves... most are tic tac toe...if you dont make a mistake, you can never be killed, unless someone else makes a mistake in many of these...

its as much a stalemate as any other...perhaps another means should be used to end it....but its still a stalemate..

[joecoolfrog]

JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

chip away at a player. no need to totally elimate him. take 1 country per turn. if others are doing the same than players will eventullay be eliminated. Instead, everyone sits there and deploys and ends turn or takes the same country back and forth giving each player a card. Put 50 armies on that country not allowing them to get the card. Dont just sit there and yell "stalemate". its not. there are plenty of options to do but nobody does anthing.

A complete and utter misunderstanding of how escalating games work, perhaps thats the reason you dont play them Seriously though this just doesnt affect the majority on this site as it usually only happens amongst very good and experienced players, few if any of these are multis,cheats, trash talkers ( ) or farmers so why not just leave them to do their own thing.

[Hatchman]

JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

That's not a true stalemate. As was mentioned before, in chess a stalemate denotes when neither player can make a move, either because it's not physically possible to make any move, or the same two moves will be cycled over and over again by each side. That simply doesn't happen in Risk - you can ALWAYS make a move. You may not WANT to make a move, but you CAN. It might be risky, but hey, that's why they call it Risk.

Those semantics aside, I don't like the idea of side games being played to break these so-called "stalemates". First, because of the reason given above, that there are no real stalemates in Risk. Second, because by playing side games, you are affecting scores beyond the initial game, and using that to determine the initial game which also affects scores. If this isn't against the rules, I think it should be.

This from a person who's played 22 escalating singles the largest of which involved 5 players and the majority of which have involved 2 or 3... You'll excuse me if I take your comments with a healthy dose of salt.

[owenator]

JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

That's not a true stalemate. As was mentioned before, in chess a stalemate denotes when neither player can make a move, either because it's not physically possible to make any move, or the same two moves will be cycled over and over again by each side. That simply doesn't happen in Risk - you can ALWAYS make a move. You may not WANT to make a move, but you CAN. It might be risky, but hey, that's why they call it Risk.

Those semantics aside, I don't like the idea of side games being played to break these so-called "stalemates". First, because of the reason given above, that there are no real stalemates in Risk. Second, because by playing side games, you are affecting scores beyond the initial game, and using that to determine the initial game which also affects scores. If this isn't against the rules, I think it should be.

A stalemate game is an unwritten code of *honour*. If you've been playing regularly with the same bunch of guys in a multiple player game where you want to settle the first game, then it's not uncommon that a secondary game would be created to settle the score. Put it this way, imagine waiting to make your move after several hundreds of rounds? Then, you realize that by doing so, you would risk being the one taking an early exit and thus allowing the next person in the turn order win? Perhaps, you may want to play a couple of 6, 7, 8 player games to understand the nature of what I am describing to understand comprehend fully WHY it's considered acceptable.

[king achilles]

Basically, these all came from a game that the players agreed it to be a stalemate or a deadlocked game. There lies the problem. You guys are responsible on how the game will turn out to be and yet, when faced into a 'do-or-die' situation, no one is daring enough to take the risk of trying to win the game that all of you brought this unto yourselves.

So, to resolve the dilemma you guys put yourselves into, you all agree to make another one to settle the original game.

It can make things complicated because one repercussion about this action is that one or more players involved is forced to give away games just so he can pay the "rightful" winner, should things go in the wrong way, such as in this case, RL_Orange had to make a bunch of 1-on-1 games to pay some points for Karlo Veliki.

What if one of these players changes his mind and does not hold up his end of the bargain? Should a mod step in an agreement that you just made between yourselves?

Karlo Veliki and RL_Orange has been warned.

If you all agree to make a deciding game over another game that you think is already deadlocked, be sure your actions, whatever the outcome may be, will still be within the rules and guidelines.

[Nephilim]

achilles:

"Basically, these all came from a game that the players agreed it to be a stalemate or a deadlocked game. There lies the problem. You guys are responsible on how the game will turn out to be and yet, when faced into a 'do-or-die' situation, no one is daring enough to take the risk of trying to win the game that all of you brought this unto yourselves."

haha, sounds like you have little experience with the scenario in question....

as someone else has said, i'm sure these tiebreaker games usually happen with the veterans around here, and it is ludicrous to suggest that someone is benefiting from them in some unethical way. let me break it down for you.

when a bunch of good players play, often the game can be way too balanced (particularly on big maps with lots of pockets). when it gets to the point that no one can viably take out anyone else, there are several options:

1) a player can "grow some balls" as achilles suggests, go on a rampage, ruin the game and get shit on/blacklisted by all the other veteran players in the game. ya, great idea....

2) a majority of the players agree to a tiebreaker. in all cases i have seen of this (at least 20), there has been no foul play. even if one or two players didn't really like the idea, everyone abided by it. why? because we are more than capable of policing ourselves

3) an idea that i favor but that is less popular (in esc games)--arms limitation, i.e. everyone agrees to keep their army count down by evenly attacking each other until the trade-in values catch up to the number of armies on the board and takeouts are viable again. if anyone doesn't agree to it, they get attacked by everyone else until they agree to the program. again, we can police ourselves. i have only done this twice b/c people generally haven't caught on to it. once they do, you can be sure JR will be there to waste all of our time with the inane arguments of a 40 year old friendless, humorless virgin.

4) whatever else i can't be bothered to dream up right now

main point: far from bending or breaking any rules, RL handled this as honorably as possible. he signed onto an agreement, there was a glitch in its execution, and he still held up his end of the bargain. this is playing with honor, not cheating, you small-minded chimps (no offense, jim)

[alster]

as someone else has said, i'm sure these tiebreaker games usually happen with the veterans around here, and it is ludicrous to suggest that someone is benefiting from them in some unethical way. let me break it down for you.

a majority of the players agree to a tiebreaker. in all cases i have seen of this (at least 20), there has been no foul play. even if one or two players didn't really like the idea, everyone abided by it. why? because we are more than capable of policing ourselves

main point: far from bending or breaking any rules, RL handled this as honorably as possible. he signed onto an agreement, there was a glitch in its execution, and he still held up his end of the bargain. this is playing with honor, not cheating, you small-minded chimps (no offense, jim)

Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

[comic boy]

Basically, these all came from a game that the players agreed it to be a stalemate or a deadlocked game. There lies the problem. You guys are responsible on how the game will turn out to be and yet, when faced into a 'do-or-die' situation, no one is daring enough to take the risk of trying to win the game that all of you brought this unto yourselves.

So, to resolve the dilemma you guys put yourselves into, you all agree to make another one to settle the original game.

It can make things complicated because one repercussion about this action is that one or more players involved is forced to give away games just so he can pay the "rightful" winner, should things go in the wrong way, such as in this case, RL_Orange had to make a bunch of 1-on-1 games to pay some points for Karlo Veliki.

What if one of these players changes his mind and does not hold up his end of the bargain? Should a mod step in an agreement that you just made between yourselves?

Karlo Veliki and RL_Orange has been warned.

If you all agree to make a deciding game over another game that you think is already deadlocked, be sure your actions, whatever the outcome may be, will still be within the rules and guidelines.

Firstly can you outline why they were warned, not Im sure because of agreeing a tiebreak game so please clarify that this breaks no rules. Secondly you seem to have experience or comprehension of the 'stalemate 'situation we are discussing, it is the point in the game when taking out a player would leave you weaker not stronger so any major attacks simply lead to handing the game to another player....AND THROWING GAMES IS AGAINST THE RULES. There are several ways of resolving 'stalemate' games but the tiebreak is the overwhelming favourite because it is seen as the fairest solution. Those that play high level escalating are happy with this, it breaks no rules, it doesn't impact on anybody outside the game in question, so I really cant see what on earth it has to do with the mods or assorted twats who do not play this type of game.

[Hatchman]

Achilles: Just so you're clear, usually only ONE tie-breaker game is required. The case in question was exceptional due to the actions of the account sitter. Unfortunately, multiple games were needed.

[ahunda]

Basically, these all came from a game that the players agreed it to be a stalemate or a deadlocked game. There lies the problem. You guys are responsible on how the game will turn out to be and yet, when faced into a 'do-or-die' situation, no one is daring enough to take the risk of trying to win the game that all of you brought this unto yourselves.

You, like some others here, seem not to understand the problem we are talking about.

In an Escalating game, where the cash values have reached 150 and every player on the board has 350+ armies, what risk is there worth taking ? It is not 'do-or-die', but 'do-and-die', because any 'daring' move will weaken you so much, that you become target number 1 yourself. At this point even killing another player & taking his cards for a mid-turn cash will leave you weaker than before.

As someone pointed out already (here or in one of the related threads), nobody really likes these stalemate situations, and everybody tries his best to win the game. This however includes not making yourself vulnerable & staying as strong as possible. The only 'daring' move, that makes sense in Escalating is going for a kill / sweep. That is, what you are working towards with every move: Getting in a position, that will allow you to go for a kill / sweep.

At the same time, you try to prevent other players going for a kill / sweep, cause them winning means you losing. So you for example set blocks in their attack ways. If everybody does that (with other words: if everybody plays it smart), it will come down to drop / positioning, turn order, dice & cards. Most of the time somebody will get a shot at someone else and consequently take the game. But sometimes the game goes stale. It simply happens, when everybody is playing it smart.

If the top players of this format all agree, that stalemates / deadlocks / draws can happen in this games, then maybe you should just give them the benefit of the doubt ?

So, to resolve the dilemma you guys put yourselves into, you all agree to make another one to settle the original game.

To resolve the dilemma we put ourselves into by playing it smart and not making dumb moves / mistakes, we agreed on a tie-breaker. As it has been done countless times before.

It can make things complicated because one repercussion about this action is that one or more players involved is forced to give away games just so he can pay the "rightful" winner, should things go in the wrong way, such as in this case, RL_Orange had to make a bunch of 1-on-1 games to pay some points for Karlo Veliki.

Even if things go perfectly smooth & according to plan / agreement, all but the winner will give away the stalemate game.

It has been discussed now, that the whole tie-breaker business might technically be against the rules, since it involves throwing a game, but that it is very questionable, if it constitutes "abuse" of the game. No one is point dumping, everyone tries to win.

Nobody likes to be in the situation in the first place, but it is the best solution for this recurring dilemma, that the players of this site have found. If CC would for example offer a "Draw" button, that when clicked by all participating players, would simply end the game as a "draw" (giving no points to anybody), we wouldn´t need to find solutions like this ourselves.

What if one of these players changes his mind and does not hold up his end of the bargain? Should a mod step in an agreement that you just made between yourselves?

I don´t see any problem here. I have never seen a player break the agreement. This kind of thing usually only happens between skilled & rather high ranked players, in private games. Most of these players play each other regularly, and all of them know how the tie-breakers work.

If someone would break the agreement, he´d simply land on a lot of Foe lists and practically be banned from participating in high ranked Escalating games. End of story.

Karlo Veliki and RL_Orange has been warned.

If you all agree to make a deciding game over another game that you think is already deadlocked, be sure your actions, whatever the outcome may be, will still be within the rules and guidelines.

If we agree to make a tie-breaker, we automatically agree to throw a game, i.e. the stalemate game to the winner of the tie-breaker. People have been discussing for several pages in 2 or 3 threads now, if this in itself actually is within the rules and guidelines, and it would be nice to get a real ruling here.

Either the tie-breaker practice is ok & tolerated by the site. Your ruling seems to say so, since you are talking about future tie-breaker games. In that case, I am wondering, why Karlo & Orange were warned. If tie-breakers are ok, and if you understood the whole situation (it being an accident, that is), they should be cleared.

Or the tie-breaker practice is deemed against the rules, cause all tie-breakers involve the throwing of a game. Then the warning would make sense, but it should be given to everybody involved in the original stalemate & tie-breaker games.

EDIT: Fast-posted by several others. Probably cause I´m a slow-poster ...

[Night Strike]

Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

I like this interpretation, and it seems to be accurate to me.

[ahunda]

Just found this in another thread:

Hello Karlo Veliki,

You have received a formal disciplinary warning.

Issued by: king achilles

Comment:

Let this be a warning that throwing of games is still not allowed whether you guys have some sort of agreement or not. Again, throwing of games and taking advantage from it is not permitted. Should you be involve in another similar case, we will respond accordingly.

Regards,
The Conquer Club

If "throwing of games is still not allowed whether you guys have some sort of agreement or not", what does this mean for tie-breakers in general ?

Would Karlo be punished, if he took part in another tie-breaker & handed the stalemate game to the winner of the tie-breaker ?

EDIT: Argh, fast-posted again ...

So, Night Strike, should we take this as an official answer:

Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.

[AAFitz]

Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

I like this interpretation, and it seems to be accurate to me.

I agree. I knew when I saw the 1v1s a warning was coming, but I wanted to make sure that they were not taken out of context and god forbid some further discipline, if the act was misconstrued. They look worse than they are, and if a babysitter hadnt messed up, it never would have happened.

I think its obvious that one tie breaker really isnt what the rules are against, and if its done in one game, thats no real different than making a stupid move and ending it anyways. If many are set up, or obviously many 1v1's...the oportunity for abuse is too high, and it just cant be allowed.

As always, the mods will address each case individually, and motive and actions will be weighed, hopefully fairly.

Point dumping means dropping lots of games intentionally...it clearly does not mean one or two occasionally...or wed all be guilty...as I showed rather....dramatically in the other thread.

Im glad this ended up where I thought it would, and it seems as reasonable as it possibly can be.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

"40 year old friendless, humorless virgin".

im 35

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

I like this interpretation, and it seems to be accurate to me.

I agree. I knew when I saw the 1v1s a warning was coming, but I wanted to make sure that they were not taken out of context and god forbid some further discipline, if the act was misconstrued. They look worse than they are, and if a babysitter hadnt messed up, it never would have happened.

I think its obvious that one tie breaker really isnt what the rules are against, and if its done in one game, thats no real different than making a stupid move and ending it anyways. If many are set up, or obviously many 1v1's...the oportunity for abuse is too high, and it just cant be allowed.

As always, the mods will address each case individually, and motive and actions will be weighed, hopefully fairly.

Point dumping means dropping lots of games intentionally...it clearly does not mean one or two occasionally...or wed all be guilty...as I showed rather....dramatically in the other thread.

Im glad this ended up where I thought it would, and it seems as reasonable as it possibly can be.

your whole theory is on the fact that games are draws/stalemates. Its not chess. Every game played on this site has a possible solution. It may not be what everyone likes, but every game can be played to the end without other games being created.

[AAFitz]

Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

I like this interpretation, and it seems to be accurate to me.

I agree. I knew when I saw the 1v1s a warning was coming, but I wanted to make sure that they were not taken out of context and god forbid some further discipline, if the act was misconstrued. They look worse than they are, and if a babysitter hadnt messed up, it never would have happened.

I think its obvious that one tie breaker really isnt what the rules are against, and if its done in one game, thats no real different than making a stupid move and ending it anyways. If many are set up, or obviously many 1v1's...the oportunity for abuse is too high, and it just cant be allowed.

As always, the mods will address each case individually, and motive and actions will be weighed, hopefully fairly.

Point dumping means dropping lots of games intentionally...it clearly does not mean one or two occasionally...or wed all be guilty...as I showed rather....dramatically in the other thread.

Im glad this ended up where I thought it would, and it seems as reasonable as it possibly can be.

your whole theory is on the fact that games are draws/stalemates. Its not chess. Every game played on this site has a possible solution. It may not be what everyone likes, but every game can be played to the end without other games being created.

its not a theory, its just how it is. Secondly, they were warned about the 1v1s, which I admit was while innocent...probably a bad idea. As far as a decider game...its obvious that one is not cheating. Playing one game to decide who wins the other, is realistically no more throwing the game, than making a ridiculous move just to end the first anyways....its just semantics, and its obvious that it wont be regulated as long as it isnt taken too far.

[AndyDufresne]

Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

This is pretty much spot on, I think.

Isolated stalemate games are find---it's a common sense approach. If everyone consents, and that game is actually a stalemate game and has been going on for quite some time, such things are fine.

However, if there is suspicious play---if the game really isn't that long and drawn out, or many multiple games occur, then those are things that move toward breaking the rules.


--Andy