Kiron Conqueror - Abuse or Legal play?

[josko.ri]

I would just like to get wider CC opinion (especially from CC officials) if the way of Kiron's reaching Conqueror rank is abusive or legal playing, as there is in my opinion thin line between that in this case. At first, congrats him for reaching the rank, if majority agree this kind of play is legal.

Game 12405498 In this chat it can be seen the whole scenario, 8 player game where their winning chances were (of course) very low. I say of course because when 8 players are on the board, which chances one of them can have for winning than very low from start, not only in round 14? So they realized they both have low chances of winning, and they made agreement about 3 games tie breaker, and they made agreement how piece of cake in winning the big game will be divided by them (if Kiron wins 3 of 3 then xiangwang will suicide, and if xianwang wins 1 of 3 then Kiron will suicide). Then they played 3 game tiebreaker Game 12444098 Game 12444131 Game 12444181. All agreements were made in chat, so no secret diplomacy there.

If this is totally legal playing, here is example how this can be used for any 2 players to come to top of scoreboard. Lets say there are red and green who are friends, and both start with 1000 points. They start 3 player games and once a game starts, red says:
red: hey green, we both have 33% chances to win this game so we are both likely to lose it, looking from this point. What do you say about making one game tie breaker, and who lose that game will suicide on blue? Then they play a speed game, so their total score will still be 2000, just will partly go to side of winner, but more important, they will take out points from blue, so their total score after the tie breaker and the 3 player game will be above 2000. If they repeat this action constantly, they will ensure their total points will grow after every game. At some point and after a lot of games, one of them will for sure come to Conqueror rank.

In my opinion, there is no difference between what Kiron and xiangwang did, and the described example of 3 player games. In both cases they "artifically" reduced chances of other players in the game from some decent percent to (almost) zero percent, by taking some action which is done outside of the game.

Is this legal play, cheap play, or breaking rules? Poll added.

[Dako]

That is damn funny situation but I think it is ok if they don't repeat it. Also they made the gamble in the end of the game, not from the start.

So form me it is ok. Very weird but legal. Congrats Kiron — new conqueror.

[frankiebee]

Im my humble opinion it should'nt be legal to make choices in a game based on other games unless all players are in both game and all agree.
In a stallmate a tiebreaker game is totally fine if all players who are still alive agree on playing the tiebreaker.

In this situation, 2 players make an agreement based on a different game and the players who are still alive in the 8 player game winning chances get reduced.

If this is legal then it's very simple to abuse. I can make 3 player games with a friend and for every game we make a separate ''tie breaker game.'' Based on that tie breaker game 1 of us suicides in the other player of the 3 player game and we make sure one of us will always win and gain point over a third player.

[MoB Deadly]

My personal opinion is this is illegal.

Suiciding is illegal.

I think suiciding is illegal unless ALL players involved in the game agree about the tie-breaker game. In this case only 2 people agreed to have a tie breaker game and the rest of the game did not agree.

However, it was in the game chat and the other players should have spoken up if they did not agree with it.

I think the "legal" way they could have done it, was to form a truce not to eliminate each other, and then see how the game plays out after everyone else was eliminated

Edit: I guess I cannot assume the other players in the game did not agree to their plan. Maybe they thought it would fail and let it go. If they did not agree they should have said something saying they did not agree. Im changing my vote

[Kiron]

hey, i took this idea from another former conqueror MC and kaskavel from game http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=12075780. They claimed it was okay and they done it many times, so I assumed it was legal (probably no publicity compared to me since that game pushed me to conqueror). I admit, I view the idea as cheap and never considered using it until Grey threatened suicide on me, so I didn't exactly have a choice that game but to gamble (I got REALLY lucky in going first all 3 side games). I have played many games with Xiangwang and never did we ever employ this idea, it was more circumstantial circumstances (someone else preparing to suicide on me basically ending my chances of winning because I wiped out his army on another side of the board, which is for NOT a good reason) and the idea of potentially reaching conqueror was what made me strike the bargain. In the alternative, if the move was illegal, then a warning should be sent out since past precedence shows the move was legal by lack of punishment.

[jsnyder748]

Also xiangwang was still the most likely to win with a massive bonus and stack bigger than everyone else. He successfully made KiIIface and I obsolete (the 2 other good players besides Kiron and himself). I hurt Kiron early on, but there was always a chance for him to comeback with it being freestyle and objective.

That being said what they decided between the 2 of them is a bit of a gray area. Mc05025 has done this sort of thing before like Kiron pointed out, but not to reach the rank of conquerer directly. Only indirectly after winning other games.

All plans were spelled out in the chat so it wasn't exactly secret diplomacy. It all hinge on whether this type of deal between 2 players is legal.

[xiangwang]

I only accepted it because I thought it was a sure win for me, didn't expect kiron to go 3 times in a row straight. I didn't think it was cheating since precedents have already been set in other games with past conquerors. With those odds, it was almost sure that I would win, but alas, Kiron really got lucky.

[DoomYoshi]

if the move was illegal, then a warning should be sent out since past precedence shows the move was legal by lack of punishment.

Unfortunately, the scientific method doesn't apply to rules. I can drive down a highway at 50 over 10 times and not get busted, but you might drive down once and get busted.

However, I don't think it is illegal because a)stalemate games have to end with suicide or with players deadbeating; so it isn't illegal in all cases b) the agreement terms were clearly laid out where everyone could see them.

It is an arbitrary decision to say that players need to all be invited. If both me and another player despise player C because of his race/religion/politics/rank/username/avatar why can we not decide among ourselves who will win? This forced inclusion is something for Supreme Courts, not the Cheating and Abuse Team.

[codeblue1018]

To me, it's intentional suiciding; if its not a clear case of violating the rules, it should be. Even Xiangwang knows this is BS:

"2013-03-04 02:43:24 - xiangwang: i cant believe i am doing this".

Look into this mods; as you see, this happens more often than not even in games that really don't matter at all.

[AslanTheKing]

here we are now, sooner or later i knew we will have this discussion,
first of all i mentioned what i think of this strategy
that was jan 2011
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=117940&start=45

now were at the stage Kiron made it ( a win win situation from beginning
of the liaison with xiangwang of course)

without xiangwang he couldnt be where he is now- thats my personal opininon
ah screw my personal opinion, let me rephrase myself

without xiangwang u wouldnt be where u are now, yes, thats better and accurate

my second guess is that he played CC before as freemium,
understood the system and started as Kiron new,
this time with a determined goal
( no 1 vs 1 games, always 8 guys, take xiangwang along, play by the rules ... the CC System)

anyway he reached his goal, to look at the scoreboard, why should a freemium
become even fullplaying member when he thinks he can do the same?

Dear Kiron, sincere congrats from my side for your achievement
and i am not sarcastic right now

you beat the CC System ( playing by the rules)

but if this strange aftertaste wouldnt be , it would have been a superiour way
to achieve the Conquerer Medal
but it isnt a superiour way, its a Conquerer achieved by foulplay - or non sportsmanship
legalized by CC

So Congratulations again, but where did the pride go? there was non

[king achilles]

This is NOT to be condoned. You should only resort into making 'deciding games' if the game you are in is in a real stalemate position and everyone else remaining in the game agrees to it. You also just can't say, "I don't think I can win this game. Please attack so and so since we had an agreement from another set of games..." Do not take diplomacy into the next level where friends negotiate on who suicides or throws the game to make sure the other player wins.

Diplomacy should not be to the point where it would dictate you to throw the game away. All players should play to win and not resort to these kind of plays.

Please do not do this again.

[blakebowling]

This is NOT to be condoned. You should only make "deciding games" if the game you are in is in a stalemate position and everyone else remaining in the game agrees to it. You also just can't say, "I don't think I can win this game. Please attack so and so since we had an agreement from another set of games..." Do not take diplomacy into the next level where friends negotiate on who suicides or throws the game to make sure the other player wins.

Diplomacy should not be to the point where it would dictate you to throw the game away. All players should play to win and not resort to these kind of plays.

Please do not do this again.

If it is not condoned, then reset both of their scores. The "decider" games weren't between everyone in the original game, only two players. I've had enough of a cheating conquerer, and I thought you all had as well.

[Kiron]

This is NOT to be condoned. You should only resort into making 'deciding games' if the game you are in is in a real stalemate position and everyone else remaining in the game agrees to it. You also just can't say, "I don't think I can win this game. Please attack so and so since we had an agreement from another set of games..." Do not take diplomacy into the next level where friends negotiate on who suicides or throws the game to make sure the other player wins.

Diplomacy should not be to the point where it would dictate you to throw the game away. All players should play to win and not resort to these kind of plays.

Please do not do this again.

Okay didn't know that, sorry. Thought it was legal as I was victim of this many times. Just assumed it was legal. Here is another game where this happened to me by two other players.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=10501692

P.S. It was 1 game. Didn't know i was breaking the rules, mistakes happen.

[Butters1919]

I'll post it in both threads pertaining to the topic:

It takes many games to make conqueror. So long as they are not all of the same sort (ahem: GLG) then it's all fine. Let's all be realistic, should any one of us become conqueror, we likely all have something in our past that could be brought up amongst the naysayers and detractors.

Well done Kiron. Congrats on Conqueror!

[BigBallinStalin]

Just wanna clarify something:

Yes, I read KA's post. Assuming no mutual back-scratching across multiple games is involved, is his ruling also applicable to any kind of explicit cooperation?