Moderator: Community Team
SaMejoHn wrote:But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings.
BigBallinStalin wrote:SaMejoHn wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:xiangwang wrote:Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.
I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.
Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding,
then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.
Assuming that you two would stop colluding,
then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.
So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.
But if the win rate is the same when they are without each other (we know that it is), doesn't that contradict what you are saying?
No, but I probably wasn't clear enough. I'm not comparing their win-rates with each other and without each other. I'm analyzing K&X's win-rate with collusion, and K&X's winrate without collusion in order to show that X's #2 argument fails to support his position that they were not colluding.
X basically makes two arguments:
(1) "Hey, if we were colluding, then our win rate would be higher (90%). Since it's 50%, then we aren't colluding."Obviously, this doesn't settle the issue because if they're smart, they can collude enough so that they do not attain a 90% win rate. Instead, they could opt for a 50% winrate.
(2) "Our current winrate is 50%. If were were colluding, then our winrate would be 20% higher. Since it's not 20% higher, then we aren't colluding."I wondered: this proves nothing. If they weren't colluding, their winrate could drop to 20%, thus it would be 30%. Since the counterfactual is unknown, i.e. since we can't determine what would have happened, then we cannot conclude if collusion occurred or didn't occur. How do demonstrate my case?
Thus,
BBS basically makes the argument
Imagine two worlds. World Red is where K&X collude. World Blue is where K&X aren't colluding.In world Red (with collusion), K&X attain a 50% win rate.
In world Blue (without collusion), K&X attain a 30% win rate--because they aren't that good without collusion.
Okay, back to the RL.
Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.
In short,
1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated,
2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,
3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.
Big problem.
donelladan wrote:At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma
For you, from C&AGame 12395303- xiangwang hit everything around Vatican, but Vatican! he even hit one blue territory, just to make sure blue doesnt take over Vatican(2013-02-28 07:51:40 - xiangwang assaulted Apulia from Lombardy and conquered it from Private D)... he also knows Kiron is holding the objective, but plays dumb in chat:
2013-02-28 07:53:16 - xiangwang: sorry, hit u by accident blue on that last hit
2013-02-28 07:54:19 - xiangwang: blue, cyan hit u last turn, so u can help me now? XD
Just have a quick look to the game, this one gave me certainty, but there is more example.
I am not saying they have been cheating all along, but they should not have been playing together, they crossed the line more than once.
Fruitcake wrote:The scores don't really matter, the rank doesn't really matter, the games won don't really matter, abuse or legal play doesn't matter.
Changsha alluded to it, in a subtle fashion (as he does so often). It matters little that one can argue from a point of law (whether something is against the rules) or whether an achieved objective is deserved due to way of achieving said objective.
Real cc rank is a matter of respect. In this I do not mean respect from those who know no better, but respect from those who do. To be Conqueror can mean that any one viewing the leaderboard says to themselves, "that player must be very very good indeed". The question is, does one obtain personal satisfaction by receiving that approbation from a player who knows no better or is the satisfaction quotient ultimately improved when this accolade is made by those players who are also proven top performers. I would always go for the latter but that is a personal choice. Furthermore, to surround oneself with acolytes and sycophants who will applaud every action, every achievement and every win (in the case of cc), will also, ultimately, bring no real satisfaction (this is as true in real life as it is here).
There will always be those who view any Conqueror with a measure of distrust as to how it was achieved. However, the real greats tend not to receive censure due to the simple fact that those who do perceive their achievement in this way cannot find anything to censure them with in any real combative manner.
We have had numerous Conquerors over the years, but I can count on two hands those who the community have really tipped their hats to and it is those who I remember with respect. As for the others, I just mark them down as another also ran who hadn't really got the talent to achieve so twisted the unsaid rules do so. For themselves, if they could but see it, in doing so they sowed the seeds of their own undoing.
xiangwang wrote:donelladan wrote:At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma
For you, from C&AGame 12395303- xiangwang hit everything around Vatican, but Vatican! he even hit one blue territory, just to make sure blue doesnt take over Vatican(2013-02-28 07:51:40 - xiangwang assaulted Apulia from Lombardy and conquered it from Private D)... he also knows Kiron is holding the objective, but plays dumb in chat:
2013-02-28 07:53:16 - xiangwang: sorry, hit u by accident blue on that last hit
2013-02-28 07:54:19 - xiangwang: blue, cyan hit u last turn, so u can help me now? XD
Just have a quick look to the game, this one gave me certainty, but there is more example.
I am not saying they have been cheating all along, but they should not have been playing together, they crossed the line more than once.
Trust me, playing fog is much harder than it looks. It's always easier to be an armchair critic. if it's so easy then why don't you join a fog game that I created? Mistakes do happen in games, winning games is about who makes the least mistakes since all sides WILL make mistakes (play a specific game long enough you will start to see it). I have made many mistakes such a misdeploying, forgetting to reinforce properly, attacking wrong regions, etc in my games over time. Even at my level you WILL still make mistakes. Winning is about reducing your mistakes and also recovering. Just sometimes you don't have time to recover and that's usually when game is over or you're dead. But you live and learn.
I'm fairly sure if I look hard enough I can find mistakes from many player's previous games that can look like they were throwing away the game. Mistakes happen, it's part of CC, you learn to reduce it over time. Even if you do reduce you will find you make other ones. Some moves look quite straightforward, but in a range of many factors may look wrong. There is a reason why we favour complex maps, we are likely to make less mistakes than other players based on experience. I don't remember what I was think that game, but it seems I made a mistake somewhere there, and i didn't have time to recover. Mistakes happen, learn from it. If we were colluding then we would just wiped out the 3rd player and settle it between ourselves in that game, no need to waste troops on each other.
SaMejoHn wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, back to the RL.
Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.
In short,
1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated,
2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,
3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.
Big problem.
It's not really a problem BBS, you're just making it more complex than it has to be.
Let's say a runner had some hidden springy devices inside the soles of his/her shoes that gave him/her an advantage in a race and he/she ended up winning the race by like half a mile. Once the illegal devices are found, do you disqualify the runner for having an unfair advantage or do you ask: "Hmm, well since the runner won by such a landslide, maybe the springy things were nominally responsible for the win..."? The only way these guys can gain any "props" is if they start over and do it all legit because of course you have no way of knowing just how much the SD had to do with their scores. This is a case of secret diplomacy/point manipulation and that's against the rules. Why is it against the rules? Because it gives an unfair advantage, whether you recognize the advantage or not.
At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma
KraphtOne wrote:Game 8553895
Game 10765409
hmmm, one of these things is not like the other...
but yeah you're awesome...
Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, back to the RL.
Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.
In short,
1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated,
2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,
3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.
Big problem.
It's not really a problem BBS, you're just making it more complex than it has to be.
Let's say a runner had some hidden springy devices inside the soles of his/her shoes that gave him/her an advantage in a race and he/she ended up winning the race by like half a mile. Once the illegal devices are found, do you disqualify the runner for having an unfair advantage or do you ask: "Hmm, well since the runner won by such a landslide, maybe the springy things were nominally responsible for the win..."? The only way these guys can gain any "props" is if they start over and do it all legit because of course you have no way of knowing just how much the SD had to do with their scores. This is a case of secret diplomacy/point manipulation and that's against the rules. Why is it against the rules? Because it gives an unfair advantage, whether you recognize the advantage or not.
KraphtOne wrote:Game 8553895
Game 10765409
hmmm, one of these things is not like the other...
but yeah you're awesome...
BigBallinStalin wrote:KraphtOne wrote:Game 8553895
Game 10765409
hmmm, one of these things is not like the other...
but yeah you're awesome...
The other players chose not to coordinate---in the face of K & X's open diplomacy. Who's fault is that? The other 6 players.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
and re: underlined, if you believe that speculation and angry mobs is a good way of enforcing and creating rules, then you believe in #2 and forego the benefits of #1.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Given these constraints, we have that vague "abuse of the game" rule
BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) We can establish new rules for determining collusion because:
(a) I support the rule of law--i.e. equality before the law.
(b) Clearer rules diminish the possibility of perverse incentives (e.g. Conqueror Corruption).
(c) Clearer methods of prosecution reduce costs (e.g. 15 pages of this thread) and reduce the chance of accidentally enforcing injustice.[/list]
BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) or we can say, 'f*ck that' and appeal to the Ban Hammer.
I want more of #1 and less of #2, so that these entanglements can be somewhat reduced in the future.
KraphtOne wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:KraphtOne wrote:Game 8553895
Game 10765409
hmmm, one of these things is not like the other...
but yeah you're awesome...
The other players chose not to coordinate---in the face of K & X's open diplomacy. Who's fault is that? The other 6 players.
Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
and re: underlined, if you believe that speculation and angry mobs is a good way of enforcing and creating rules, then you believe in #2 and forego the benefits of #1.
Nobody is acting angry-mobbish BBS. This whole thing is just insulting is all.
Just because a shady practice is not written word for word in the rules doesn't mean it's not cheating. If someone comes up with a hack that alters the dice are you going to argue that it's not stated in the rules that you can't do so and therefore the points gained from said hack should remain? No, that would be ridiculous.
Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Given these constraints, we have that vague "abuse of the game" rule
It's vague for a reason. Its vague so that it can be applied to any obvious cheating and people don't have to hire a lawyer over the details. It's a safety measure to ensure that when someone is caught cheating they can't worm their way out of it by a technicality.
Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) We can establish new rules for determining collusion because:
(a) I support the rule of law--i.e. equality before the law.
(b) Clearer rules diminish the possibility of perverse incentives (e.g. Conqueror Corruption).
(c) Clearer methods of prosecution reduce costs (e.g. 15 pages of this thread) and reduce the chance of accidentally enforcing injustice.[/list]
This just doesn't work here BBS. There would be too much time dedicated to making new rules every time someone comes up with new and creative ways to cheat. While the system is being "perfected"(pipe dream) as you suggest, dishonest players will continue to screw up the scoreboard. This has happened in the past and as a result there are quite a few players in the hall of fame who really shouldn't be there. Basically it's not enough to just change the rules, there has to be some adjustment to the record for the outcome to be fair. I'm not sure how I feel about a ban but there must be some sort of point reset and absolutely the conqueror medal needs to be removed.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
I agree with your last sentence, which may attain #1, (b), so in a sense you actually agree with me. Heyyy!
If the community can create scripts which can do some serious statistical 'lifting', then why shouldn't we encourage the development of some script which can be used to determine if collusion is or is not occurring?
That's one of the points with this discussion. Surely, you wouldn't outright reject tapping into the market of coders here?
BigBallinStalin wrote:(3) Most importantly, some have a good case for punishment because they suspect inconsistencies between openly diplomatic plans and allegedly covert plans. IF in any of their games, K&X enact a plan contrary to their openly stated chat, then the collusion becomes clearer. With this in mind, the #3 argument against K&X becomes superior to the "open diplomacy only" cases.
Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:(3) Most importantly, some have a good case for punishment because they suspect inconsistencies between openly diplomatic plans and allegedly covert plans. IF in any of their games, K&X enact a plan contrary to their openly stated chat, then the collusion becomes clearer. With this in mind, the #3 argument against K&X becomes superior to the "open diplomacy only" cases.
In an ordinary singles game it's understood that each person's goal is to win that particular game. An agreement that goes against this goal in any particular game has to be either SD over the course of at least one game or point dumping so either way it's against the rules.
See, it doesn't matter if the chat matches the plan of the game if the plan obviously shows one player paving the road for the other.
Chariot of Fire wrote:Is it crystal meth that just makes someone write a load of bollocks?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:(3) Most importantly, some have a good case for punishment because they suspect inconsistencies between openly diplomatic plans and allegedly covert plans. IF in any of their games, K&X enact a plan contrary to their openly stated chat, then the collusion becomes clearer. With this in mind, the #3 argument against K&X becomes superior to the "open diplomacy only" cases.
In an ordinary singles game it's understood that each person's goal is to win that particular game. An agreement that goes against this goal in any particular game has to be either SD over the course of at least one game or point dumping so either way it's against the rules.
See, it doesn't matter if the chat matches the plan of the game if the plan obviously shows one player paving the road for the other.
This argument was already addressed, so I don't have to repeat myself or the arguments of others which countered this.Chariot of Fire wrote:Is it crystal meth that just makes someone write a load of bollocks?
Does increased exposure to pollution in large cities cause an increase in logical fallacies?
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users