dahulius & bamage [noted] BG

[xroads]

Accused:

bamage
dahulius




The accused are suspected of:

Other: unfair play



Game number(s):

Game 11771779


Comments:These guys decide to play a seperate 1vs1 game to decide who is going to throw our game & determine a winner.

[xroads]

And they get what they deserve!

[Extreme Ways]

Accused:

bamage
dahulius




The accused are suspected of:

Other: unfair play



Game number(s):

Game 11771779


Comments:These guys decide to play a seperate 1vs1 game to decide who is going to throw our game & determine a winner.

[maxfaraday]

lol
The op won this game...

[Barney Rubble]

hahahahah even more entertaining are the words in bamage's signature "games with alliances and too much chat"etc etc ...
BR

[agentcom]

Wow. Definitely against the rules.

[BGtheBrain]

Both players have been noted

[bamage]

How is this against the rules? It was all above board, in the chat?

[mviola]

I don't understand this verdict at all...

If you're in a deadlock game, you create a tiebreaker like the accused did to get out of it. I've done this about 5 times, and it's common in tourney games to get multiplayer no spoil/flat rate games to end. You should probably note every time this has happened then.

[bamage]

Exactly. My understanding is that the deal just has to be public in the game chat.

The second sentence on the Home page of this site is "Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader." That's all that happened here.

[bamage]

The best response in this thread is agentcom's "Wow, definitely against the rules." Okay... you're a global moderator. Which rule? You're so certain.

[agentcom]

The best response in this thread is agentcom's "Wow, definitely against the rules." Okay... you're a global moderator. Which rule? You're so certain.

I should clarify from the start that my primary "area" is Suggestions. I haven't done anything in C&A except express my opinion. So, what follows is my understanding of the rules.

Tiebreaker games are discouraged because they technically involve game-throwing. You play one game and then the loser(s) has (have) to throw the other game to the winner of the tiebreaker game. Thus, the rulings that I have seen have indicated that this is a very narrow exception where game throwing is allowed or at least overlooked. It is my understanding (and I think the right way to do things) that all of the players in the deadlocked game should agree to any tiebreaker games. I'm 80% sure that I've read all this in previous C&As, but I'm on vacation, so I'm not gonna go digging through cases to find precedent.

Anyway, in the instant case, there were some players in a deadlocked game that did not agree to (weren't even part of) the tiebreaker game. This would not be a case of secret diplomacy as one of the commentators seems to address:

Exactly. My understanding is that the deal just has to be public in the game chat.

This would have been a case of game throwing. But here, the throwing was unsuccessful. Perhaps that is the reason that they have only been "noted" and not "warned." I do not claim to know the C&A protocol for this situation, as I do not recall ever seeing an "attempted game throwing" case.