Forum

by **Mr Changsha** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:40 pm

From another thread...

Over the years there have been countless cases of real-life friends engaging in secret diplomacy that always seem to get away with it, as the CC-rule has always seemed to be 'real-life friends can play in large public standard games and we just have to trust that they are playing fairly...'

So we have to presume innocence in these cases. Yet I have always been deeply suspicious of any players that do this, in fact I naturally presume guilt, for it has always seemed to me that it is fundamentally dishonourable to play games on this basis. Private games are a different thing as all the players will probably be aware of the various relationships involved, it is real-life friends playing in public games that in my view should have been made against the rules many, many years ago.

Furthermore, we have to consider if there is a repeated pattern. Playing the odd public game with one's real-life friends might be considered 'a bit dodgy and should probably be avoided (warning)', however numerous games - especially if unusually high win rates are achieved - should lead to an immediate block. I disagree with you in that we should need to comb through the logs, the evidence is all there in the win rates.

I would like to see a line or two added to the rules of the game along the lines of "Please avoid playing public standard games with your real-life friends, as such play is unfair to the other participants in the game". Now this is not a new idea for me, I have made this point on more than one occasion, but I feel now would be a good time to make it again.

by **Agent 86** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:51 pm

You have my vote, just that it's a bit of a grey area to know who everyone's real-life friends are?

86

P.S. Putting it in general discussion is a good idea..more will see it. Will probably get moved to suggestions.

by **Tenebrus** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:04 pm

I do agree, but it also inevitably raises the question "what is a friend". From a purely CC perspective, I'm sure a lot of people are closer to their clan mates than their actual friends. Do we plan clan mates from playing games together? Sometimes a hard and fast rule is just not the way to go, and you have to leave it to interpretation and the particular case. If you draw a bright line then inevitably some hard cases fall on the wrong side of it.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the "Don't be an a**hole" rule. And I think you have to trust the C&A team on that - generally I think they do a good job with it.

by **stahrgazer** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:24 pm

This is a suggestion that is adding a rule to something that is already against the rules. Secret Diplomacy.

People could be in cahoots in a variety of ways, sure. One is pm's. One is emails. One is skype or other voice chat. One is phone. Another is, as this suggestion intimates, "playing with a rl friend where you can either speak with them about what is happening or watch each other as it's happening."

These are all still banned under the ban on "secret diplomacy."

So, no new rule is needed.

Now, if the concern is, "because player 1 likes player z so does things to help z win if player 1 cannot win," well, as someone suggested, clanmates, chatmates, ranks... all sorts of things affect whether you will "favor" one player over another, too many to ban unless there is some sort of global limit on how many standard games player 1 and player z can participate in together.

So, maybe a global limit for any 2 players on standard public games (or terminator, or assassin) would address all situations, rather than adding a rule where an existing rule already covers the problem.

by **Funkyterrance** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:08 pm

stahrgazer wrote:This is a suggestion that is adding a rule to something that is already against the rules. Secret Diplomacy.

People could be in cahoots in a variety of ways, sure. One is pm's. One is emails. One is skype or other voice chat. One is phone. Another is, as this suggestion intimates, "playing with a rl friend where you can either speak with them about what is happening or watch each other as it's happening."

These are all still banned under the ban on "secret diplomacy."

So, no new rule is needed.

Now, if the concern is, "because player 1 likes player z so does things to help z win if player 1 cannot win," well, as someone suggested, clanmates, chatmates, ranks... all sorts of things affect whether you will "favor" one player over another, too many to ban unless there is some sort of global limit on how many standard games player 1 and player z can participate in together.

So, maybe a global limit for any 2 players on standard public games (or terminator, or assassin) would address all situations, rather than adding a rule where an existing rule already covers the problem.

I think Mr. Changsha is suggesting we go a step further because in reality as we know it, real-life friends and family will favor one another much more than they will a faceless online person. This is not to mention the very real possibility that supposed "flatmates" are actually the same person.
I know in my heart that I am super strict with myself about fair play. However, I play on here with a couple of people that I know in real life and I would never play against them except in a 1v1 game. Not only would it unfairly arouse suspicions with the other players in the game, I might subconsciously favor them in a situation that was close strategically. Why put yourself and your other opponents in this predicament? If you want to be "challenged" by playing against your real life friends, play a 1v1 freestyle speeder or break out the actual board game(gasp!).

by **ManBungalow** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:08 pm

I mostly figured that's what team games are for.

(in response to this thread in general)

by **Gabriel13** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:15 pm

stahrgazer wrote:This is a suggestion that is adding a rule to something that is already against the rules. Secret Diplomacy.

People could be in cahoots in a variety of ways, sure. One is pm's. One is emails. One is skype or other voice chat. One is phone. Another is, as this suggestion intimates, "playing with a rl friend where you can either speak with them about what is happening or watch each other as it's happening."

These are all still banned under the ban on "secret diplomacy."

So, no new rule is needed.

Now, if the concern is, "because player 1 likes player z so does things to help z win if player 1 cannot win," well, as someone suggested, clanmates, chatmates, ranks... all sorts of things affect whether you will "favor" one player over another, too many to ban unless there is some sort of global limit on how many standard games player 1 and player z can participate in together.

So, maybe a global limit for any 2 players on standard public games (or terminator, or assassin) would address all situations, rather than adding a rule where an existing rule already covers the problem.

I think the global limit thing is a terrible idea, as I play MANY speed games with the same people over and over (6-player standards), and there aren't that many people that like FS speed games as much as we do, so the limit thing would honestly completely ruin the site for me and others that love their settings on certain games.

by **thegreekdog** on Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:38 am

My response to Mr Changsha is whether he has considered whether people would stop playing the game if they were discouraged from playing public games with their friends. In other words, is there a group of players that joined this site and continue to play games because they play with friends?

by **Crazyirishman** on Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:42 pm

I personally would be more inclined to attack somebody who was my rl friend just to stick it to them, maybe I'm the only one.

by **KoolBak** on Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:15 pm

Of the 100+ members in our group, all are friends but many are RL friends and they are who I play the most (99%) with. Stupid rule. Our motto (for over 8 years) has been "Friends Killing Friends, With Honor".....I'd much rather hit a bud than a stranger :lol:

by **Funkyterrance** on Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:44 pm

It does seem like something of a conundrum. Ideally, people who were friends in real life would only play either on the same team or in private games where all players knew each other.
The problem obviously lies in constructing a filter that can tell when each of these is happening and when it's not. Maybe the proposed standard game friend blocking filter should be "turned off" when it is a private game and "turned on" when it is public? Would that be an ok solution?

by **Mr Changsha** on Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:14 am

thegreekdog wrote:My response to Mr Changsha is whether he has considered whether people would stop playing the game if they were discouraged from playing public games with their friends. In other words, is there a group of players that joined this site and continue to play games because they play with friends?

I think real-life friends should play private games with those friends and other players who are aware of their relationship.

However, I am aware that it is basically impossible to stop people from playing in public games with their real-life friends. What I would like to see, and I mentioned this in the OP, is that CC switches from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt in those CandA cases where secret diplomacy is suspected. As it is right now we have to prove foul play, which is devilishly difficult, while I feel the site should assume that where real-life friends are playing in large standard flat games they are up to no good...and certainly where the win percentages are more than suspect.

by **stumeister69** on Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:59 am

and what about innocent until proven guilty

by **Mr Changsha** on Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:14 am

stumeister69 wrote:and what about innocent until proven guilty

That is of course a good point.

However, consider the analogy of a man caught with his hand in the bag of a woman he does not know. Now I suppose it is possible his hand is in their for a purely innocent purpose, but one must assume its intention is in some way destructive - whether to fondle a lady's feminie hygeine products, or check for a pair of emergency briefs, or simply and far more boringly, lift her mobile phone.

Any woman who happened to find a strange man in such a state would naturally presume guilt and it would be up to the gentleman to explan his way out of the situation. She would certainly not presume innocence.

by **koontz1973** on Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:28 am

Amazing how reactionary some players can be.

Off course friends should be able to play friends, even in large games with other people. Should they be declared as friends in the log, no. No matter what the club does to deter players from cheating, some will always try to circumvent the rules for benefit. You change the rule to include this, how will you determine they are real life friends?