Conquer Club

dahulius & bamage [noted] BG

All previously decided cases. Please check here before opening a new case.

Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

[These cases have been closed. If you would like to appeal the decision of the hunter please open a ticket on the help page and the case will be looked into by a second hunter.]

dahulius & bamage [noted] BG

Postby xroads on Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:22 pm

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.
Lieutenant xroads
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:29 am
25532

Re: dahulius & bamage

Postby xroads on Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:47 pm

And they get what they deserve!
Lieutenant xroads
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:29 am
25532

Re: dahulius & bamage

Postby Extreme Ways on Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:23 am

xroads wrote: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.
TOFU, ex-REP, ex-VDLL, ex-KoRT.
User avatar
General Extreme Ways
 
Posts: 1723
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:02 am
2

Re: dahulius & bamage

Postby maxfaraday on Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:01 am

lol
The op won this game...
From: Karl_R_Kroenen
To: maxfaraday

I have noted this post and if it continues, there will be consequences for you.
Sergeant 1st Class maxfaraday
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:48 am

Re: dahulius & bamage

Postby Barney Rubble on Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:58 am

hahahahah even more entertaining are the words in bamage's signature "games with alliances and too much chat"etc etc ... :roll: :roll:
BR
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Barney Rubble
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:28 pm
Location: Bedrock
2

Re: dahulius & bamage

Postby agentcom on Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:46 pm

Wow. Definitely against the rules.
User avatar
Colonel agentcom
 
Posts: 3980
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: dahulius & bamage [noted] BG

Postby BGtheBrain on Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:21 am

Both players have been noted
User avatar
Captain BGtheBrain
 
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: dahulius & bamage [noted] BG

Postby bamage on Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:09 am

How is this against the rules? It was all above board, in the chat?
User avatar
Major bamage
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 8:27 am
Location: Fort Yancy, CA

Re: dahulius & bamage [noted] BG

Postby mviola on Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:32 am

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.
High Score: 2906
User avatar
Major mviola
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI/NY

Re: dahulius & bamage [noted] BG

Postby bamage on Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:25 am

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.
User avatar
Major bamage
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 8:27 am
Location: Fort Yancy, CA

Re: dahulius & bamage [noted] BG

Postby bamage on Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:28 am

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.
User avatar
Major bamage
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 8:27 am
Location: Fort Yancy, CA

Re: dahulius & bamage [noted] BG

Postby agentcom on Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:33 pm

bamage wrote: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:

bamage wrote: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.
User avatar
Colonel agentcom
 
Posts: 3980
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:50 pm


Return to Closed C&A Reports

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users