Conquer Club

hmsps wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, they've just said that they would be annoyed if they were the one who lost as a result of it. Well, sometimes you lose in this game due to factors outside of your control. If you aren't willing to risk your money given that this is true, then don't enter the Conquer Cup. The fact that you paid money to enter the tournament doesn't mean the rules of the game should change. Ponez paid money to enter the tournament too, and is probably disappointed that the other players played in such a way that forced him to lose. Should he be compensated too? Of course not, because you have no obligation to assist others in how you play.

I do wonder at times of the constant willingness to support bad gamesmanship. I'm not saying there should be punishment as its not against the rules but it is pretty bad form in the CC especially when people pay hard cash as an add on tournament. At the very least there should be a couple of free slots available for the next tournament

You have got to make up your mind here. If it's only bad form and something that the community should collectively roll their eyes at, then there's no reason to compensate these people. If it's actually against the rules, then yes something should be done; but you have to be willing to argue that this should be against the rules in all cases first.

I have been following this game and what ponez did is unacceptable. I would remove the priviledge of the conquer cup bonze medal.
He had the game lost and suicided on 2 out of 3 opponents jut because he is an asshole. I had him foed already for similar reasons.
People payed 5$ to play this and reaching round 5 is loads of work. If he had any minimal chance to win, it would've been without doing any attack and having as much troops as possible. Throwing a game is part of the don't do's in the rules.

I mean come on, there are so many reports about stupid irrelevant games, they are games with 20 points at the end, this one's got an ipad and has been paid for and played for over 3 month.

This type of attitude is unacceptable, this guy reached rounf 5 so he knew what he was doing. He deserves to be stripped from the conquer cup medal he is supposed to win when this tournament ends.

I'm still in this tournament waiting for my round 5, if somene does this to me I would become batshit crazy here is C&A.

Metsfanmax wrote:

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, they've just said that they would be annoyed if they were the one who lost as a result of it. Well, sometimes you lose in this game due to factors outside of your control. If you aren't willing to risk your money given that this is true, then don't enter the Conquer Cup. The fact that you paid money to enter the tournament doesn't mean the rules of the game should change. Ponez paid money to enter the tournament too, and is probably disappointed that the other players played in such a way that forced him to lose. Should he be compensated too? Of course not, because you have no obligation to assist others in how you play.

Here's my argument:
The "Rules" section explicitly states that:
"Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, holding players hostage, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new recruits."

1) intentionally throwing a game is explicitly forbidden by the CC Rules listed above. Because Ponez sacrificed his own troops in a way that gave absolutely no conceivable benefit to himself but serves the sole purpose of giving the game to one particular player, this constitutes "throwing [the] game". That should settle the matter on face, but if not, I would argue additionally that...

2) The rules against "Farming," Secret Diplomacy, and Multiple Accounts are designed to prevent one player from intentionally acting on the behalf of any other player. Because Ponez acted not in his own interests but instead in the interests of another player (Lokisgal), Ponez was in violation of these rules as well. Because this act was one-sided, Lokisgal did nothing improper (and in fact condemned the action) and the violation rests solely with Ponez.

3) In defense of the Rules. I believe that the rules against throwing games or illegally coordinating undermines the basic principle of the game. The game works only when all players act in their own interest to win. Point are an added way of tracking player's skill to make more competitive games between like-skilled players possible. The goal is to win, and every player should try to do so. If the odds are 0%, then that player should allow the other players to attempt to win on their own merits. In any game - not just risk-style games - the fun of everyone participating is ruined if one player intentionally violates this principle.

nvanputten wrote:1) intentionally throwing a game is explicitly forbidden by the CC Rules listed above. Because Ponez sacrificed his own troops in a way that gave absolutely no conceivable benefit to himself but serves the sole purpose of giving the game to one particular player, this constitutes "throwing [the] game". That should settle the matter on face, but if not, I would argue additionally that...

This simply not what is meant by throwing a game. Game throwing occurs when you intentionally lose a game. Since Ponez did not intentionally lose a game, but (according to you) changed the course of a game he had already lost, he is not in violation of the rule preventing game throwing. It's just incorrect by definition, and the C&A team has over the years consistently agreed that moves like this don't constitute throwing the game.

2) The rules against "Farming," Secret Diplomacy, and Multiple Accounts are designed to prevent one player from intentionally acting on the behalf of any other player. Because Ponez acted not in his own interests but instead in the interests of another player (Lokisgal), Ponez was in violation of these rules as well. Because this act was one-sided, Lokisgal did nothing improper (and in fact condemned the action) and the violation rests solely with Ponez.

It could hardly be said to be one-sided. As has been pointed out in this thread, Ponez benefited by his move; he now loses fewer points than he would have, if either you or the other player had won. So there was a clear motivation for him to do what he did.

3) In defense of the Rules. I believe that the rules against throwing games or illegally coordinating undermines the basic principle of the game. The game works only when all players act in their own interest to win. Point are an added way of tracking player's skill to make more competitive games between like-skilled players possible. The goal is to win, and every player should try to do so. If the odds are 0%, then that player should allow the other players to attempt to win on their own merits. In any game - not just risk-style games - the fun of everyone participating is ruined if one player intentionally violates this principle.

Ok, so the argument comes down to this. You think that if a player absolutely cannot win a game, they should just let the game play out. I disagree for the direct reason that acting in your own best interests includes losing as few points as possible. Your argumentation fails because you suggest that we should act in our own best interest to win a game, but stop acting in our own best interest when winning the game is no longer possible. There is no good reason to uphold this standard, because most of the reason you want to win the game in the first place is to be recognized with the points you earn. The fact that the game may be less fun when people do things like this is why it is rightly considered to be "bad form," but it cannot be a reason why it should be precluded by the rules of the game.

One thing that occurs to me is that while it is obviously really bad form to do something like this in a Conquer Cup game, one might also argue that there is a larger problem here. lokisgal does indeed stand to benefit a lot in real life because of Ponez's decision, and this highlights a problem of what might happen when you have friends playing each other in Conquer Cup games. There may not be any secret diplomacy involved, but if two people are on good terms with each other, then one person might be tempted to sabotage the other players in this situation, simply because of this friendship. I don't know if there's any way to prevent something like this from happening, but it's something to consider. Seeing as lokisgal said he would foe Ponez because of that move, I doubt it happened here however

Metsfanmax wrote:

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, blah, blah, blah...

It appears to be against the rules as written. It also has been noted/warned (although a bit inconsistently) in c&a. I think they need to pick a side and stick to it. Either suiciding/game throwing is, or is not against the rules. Then they need to enforce their decision whichever way they decided.

Thanks,

J

jghost7 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, blah, blah, blah...

It appears to be against the rules as written. It also has been noted/warned (although a bit inconsistently) in c&a. I think they need to pick a side and stick to it. Either suiciding/game throwing is, or is not against the rules. Then they need to enforce their decision whichever way they decided.

Thanks,

J

I agree that the decisions should be consistent. I also insist that again, this is not suiciding (according to the OP, the person had no chance of winning, so his action did not cause him to lose) and it is not game throwing (for the same reason). However, if there are incidents similar to this, where a player who had virtually no chance of winning altered the winner of the game for external motives, and it was warned by C&A mods, that is definitely something worth bringing up so that the mods can set a clear line down one way or the other. Does anyone have an example?

I will have to agree with Metsfanmax.

Conquer Cup games will have the same rules as like any other games in the website. Just because it's a Cup game, it does not mean that people should have a "legitimate" reason for attacking you and if they don't, they should be punished, banned, the game be nullified or everyone else is given the chance to advance.

There is no precedent here and if we set this new precedent, it can easily be exploited and everyone who loses the game can throw accusations to anyone who has attacked them saying that the guy didn't have a chance to win so when he attacked you, it was suicidal and therefore, you should advance to the next round or the game be deleted. If you want to set a precedent here, then it should apply to all games, not just Cup games. It is like in 3 player games where one player may have attacked one player more so the one being attacked accuses the attacker of cheating.

He may be guilty of deciding who the winner may be or tried to actually win it but we can not dictate a player to what his next move should be. This game shall be noted in case he does it anew (to any future games) and is suspicious again for suiciding or help dictate who the winner will be.

king achilles wrote:I will have to agree with Metsfanmax.

Conquer Cup games will have the same rules as like any other games in the website. Just because it's a Cup game, it does not mean that people should have a "legitimate" reason for attacking you and if they don't, they should be punished, banned, the game be nullified or everyone else is given the chance to advance.

There is no precedent here and if we set this new precedent, it can easily be exploited and everyone who loses the game can throw accusations to anyone who has attacked them saying that the guy didn't have a chance to win so when he attacked you, it was suicidal and therefore, you should advance to the next round or the game be deleted. If you want to set a precedent here, then it should apply to all games, not just Cup games. It is like in 3 player games where one player may have attacked one player more so the one being attacked accuses the attacker of cheating.

He may be guilty of deciding who the winner may be or tried to actually win it but we can not dictate a player to what his next move should be. This game shall be noted in case he does it anew (to any future games) and is suspicious again for suiciding or help dictate who the winner will be.

Once again, either it is or it is not against the rules. Suiciding/Game Throwing is something that happens quite frequently here, and it is not consistent or fair that one player gets a warning, one player gets a noted, and one player gets cleared for about the same offense.

If you don't believe that Suiciding/Game Throwing should be against the rules, then remove them and quit fielding those same accusations. Be clear in your rulings. If it is noted, it implies it was wrong but without enough evidence. Here you note it but imply he did nothing wrong. Lets not send mixed signals; he either did wrong or he did right.

I think some of the bigger problems/misunderstandings in c&a come from seemingly wishy-washy rulings that try to ride the line and are intentionally vague.

Thanks,

J

king achilles wrote:I will have to agree with Metsfanmax.

Conquer Cup games will have the same rules as like any other games in the website. Just because it's a Cup game, it does not mean that people should have a "legitimate" reason for attacking you and if they don't, they should be punished, banned, the game be nullified or everyone else is given the chance to advance.

There is no precedent here and if we set this new precedent, it can easily be exploited and everyone who loses the game can throw accusations to anyone who has attacked them saying that the guy didn't have a chance to win so when he attacked you, it was suicidal and therefore, you should advance to the next round or the game be deleted. If you want to set a precedent here, then it should apply to all games, not just Cup games. It is like in 3 player games where one player may have attacked one player more so the one being attacked accuses the attacker of cheating.

He may be guilty of deciding who the winner may be or tried to actually win it but we can not dictate a player to what his next move should be. This game shall be noted in case he does it anew (to any future games) and is suspicious again for suiciding or help dictate who the winner will be.

I'm troubled by the ambiguity here. The rules clearly say that throwing a game (or for that matter, other examples of "gross abuse") are against the rules. If intentionally sacrificing troops to give the game to one particular player isn't "throwing" then what is the definition you are using? Furthermore, your argument about precedent seems poorly applied to this. Unlike the example you gave, there is no conjecture or speculation here. It was the last turn of the game, and with no further moves the outcome of his actions was clear and absolute. It hurt his own position significantly and those of 2 other players to a lesser degree and helped 1 player in contrast. This is very different from someone being attacked over the course of the game. I agree with the need to be consistent inside and outside of tournaments. But why have rules if they aren't enforced? This seems about as clear cut as can be: he went from over 200 troops to 127 and left the leader with 200. If this game doesn't show sufficient proof of "throwing a game" then I have no idea what would be.

well i think metsfan and king a you are both wrong. metsfan and king a have you actually read the very short sentence in the rules surronding throwing of games... let me copy paste it...

Unwritten Rules

Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, holding players hostage, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new recruits.

now where in this short rule does it say you have to have the chance of winning to throw the game it does not. what it does say you are not allowed to deliberately benefit from throwing the game. which this player has done he benefited by saving 5 or 10 points which is extra he would of lost if one of the others won the game which he took out of the game when he had no chance of winning. also there has been a warning given for this before from what i remember just dont have the time to look just now but will later. i have more to add to this and will after work

Ok I get that you guys don't want to open the pandora box, because if this passes you will have way too many reports accumulating here.
You still need to take the context into consideration. Last round of the semi finals of the only tournament you have t pay for. If you guys aren't protecting the players from this type of behaviours, no one will agree to join and pay. I think for the conquer cup 5 you guys need to write somewhere that "deliberately giving the game to another player" is punishable.

Come on guys, this is a way bigger offense that secret diplomacy or even point dumping imo. This is to me the biggest type of tolerated cheat on this site, it needs to stop.

also, in the only game I've playe vs ponez, he was this type of player:
Game 11093064

basically an assassin game where yellow was about to get killed and this idiot instead of protecting him kills him in the regions away from his assassin to get bonuses and not last one more round. He is basically the type of player that gives the game away when he has/thinks he lost all his chances.

I would accept that paid-for tournaments may need to be considered separately. However, in regular games, given the lack of a suicide button (debated elsewhere, not here again please), what else is one supposed to do from a hopeless position? Whilst of course one playes generally for the fun of playing, it is about the points; and choosing to lose to a colonel rather than a cook is surely good, sensible, skilled play? As a freemium, given my games limit, it's in my best interest to finish a losing game asap and move on to the next one: so maybe I take out some neutrals so I can be eliminated more easily, rather than attacking the game leader. Is that "throwing a game"? What's the difference between attacking player A and in so doing help player B, and attacking player B and thereby helping player A?
What about when someone insults you, is it wrong to attack them to ensure that they don't win? Are you really expecting everyone to "turn the other cheek"? This is a warfare-based game, after all...

clangfield wrote:I would accept that paid-for tournaments may need to be considered separately. However, in regular games, given the lack of a suicide button (debated elsewhere, not here again please), what else is one supposed to do from a hopeless position? Whilst of course one playes generally for the fun of playing, it is about the points; and choosing to lose to a colonel rather than a cook is surely good, sensible, skilled play? As a freemium, given my games limit, it's in my best interest to finish a losing game asap and move on to the next one: so maybe I take out some neutrals so I can be eliminated more easily, rather than attacking the game leader. Is that "throwing a game"? What's the difference between attacking player A and in so doing help player B, and attacking player B and thereby helping player A?
What about when someone insults you, is it wrong to attack them to ensure that they don't win? Are you really expecting everyone to "turn the other cheek"? This is a warfare-based game, after all...

my problem with the current situation, is that yellow (ponez) was the first to play the last round. His best interest was to not attack anyone and have the highest troop count possible; let the other 3 chew up on each other, and who knows, with a bit of luck win if the others had bad dice when the other 3 evened up the troop count.
Anyway, this was the last round, so your point doesn't stand. no one had insulted that player or anything before, he just needed to start and end turn, this game wouldn't ve been of his concern anymore if you're talking about a "resign" button.

betiko wrote:You still need to take the context into consideration. Last round of the semi finals of the only tournament you have t pay for. If you guys aren't protecting the players from this type of behaviours, no one will agree to join and pay. I think for the conquer cup 5 you guys need to write somewhere that "deliberately giving the game to another player" is punishable.

Just like for other tournaments, this is simply not a matter for the C&A forum. We're no longer discussing whether the action was against site rules, we're discussing whether there should be some repercussions in the tournament structure itself. As we've seen in clans and tournaments, sometimes the organizers and directors set rules above and beyond the site rules for receiving awards in the event. But then you need to bring this discussion up in the appropriate venue.

Metsfanmax wrote:

betiko wrote:You still need to take the context into consideration. Last round of the semi finals of the only tournament you have t pay for. If you guys aren't protecting the players from this type of behaviours, no one will agree to join and pay. I think for the conquer cup 5 you guys need to write somewhere that "deliberately giving the game to another player" is punishable.

Just like for other tournaments, this is simply not a matter for the C&A forum. We're no longer discussing whether the action was against site rules, we're discussing whether there should be some repercussions in the tournament structure itself. As we've seen in clans and tournaments, sometimes the organizers and directors set rules above and beyond the site rules for receiving awards in the event. But then you need to bring this discussion up in the appropriate venue.

Actually, Game Throwing is listed under Major infractions, and although suiciding is not specifically listed, it has also been ruled upon as an infraction in c&a as well.

IMO, these should be removed from the rules altogether as they infringe on a players right to play the game as they see fit. Still, they remain and are only enforced irregularly.

Thanks,

J

ok one case is this it was only cleared because it was a player doing it to win a tourney from what i remember. this is the case here it is a tourney....

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=138479&hilit=game+throwing+tourney&start=15

night strike has said it himself in his verdict of the case... and this is a tourney.

Night Strike wrote:The site rule regarding throwing games is in place to keep people from tossing points to other players or for retaliations for actions in that game or other games.

In tournaments, the ultimate goal is to win the tournament, so if that means a player settles for not winning a particular game in order to win the entire tournament, that is perfectly acceptable. This case is where a player is competing in a particular manner to help himself win, which is allowed. If someone else were to suicide into players to purposefully give the tournament to a different person, that would not be allowed.

brandoncfi is cleared of any tournament wrong doing and should be cleared by the hunters as well.

read what is in the red and tell me that the player acussed did not toss the game to another player taking himself out of the running.

then this from evil semp when he finally closed the case...

Evil Semp wrote:I am not convinced that brandoncfi threw the game. If brandoncfi had eliminated murphy would we even be discussing this?

If I thought that brandoncfi didn't have a chance to win the game I could agree with this report, but like I said I have not been convinced.

Brandoncfi is .

well this player could not win the game and threw it to another player...

well for example I've been in a tournament with 6 players per board and 3 games per round (official easter tournament this year) and I see nothing wrong in "throwing" a game in that case because it's all about the ranking on the 3 games put together, and if you need to kick the shit out of a certain player so you take his spot for the next round even if it gets both eliminated on the given game, you are not doing anything wrong (that's what I understood about your post eddie).

betiko wrote:well for example I've been in a tournament with 6 players per board and 3 games per round (official easter tournament this year) and I see nothing wrong in "throwing" a game in that case because it's all about the ranking on the 3 games put together, and if you need to kick the shit out of a certain player so you take his spot for the next round even if it gets both eliminated on the given game, you are not doing anything wrong (that's what I understood about your post eddie).

ah you missed the point the player in this case had lost the game and suicided into 2 players taking them out of the game which night strike has said would not be allowed in a tourney... the case i used was a correct verdict because he done it to win the tourney where as this player in this case did not.

so there has to be some form of compensation to the players eliminated through his suicide throwing of game to highest rank.. i can understand them not wanting to issue 2 free passes but can they not at least do a rematch on 3 player setting. 20 round limit would only delay it by about a week.

See this: viewtopic.php?f=89&t=183844&start=0

I've looked at the game and I fail to see where yellow actually 'threw' the game in blue's favour. He attacked red & green but not blue (and green was by far the biggest troop holder). By the time blue's turn came around she was lying 3rd in total troop count. The deciding factor was blue holding a 3 card set which allowed her to finish with more troops than either red or green (if it wasn't for the set she'd have finished 3rd).

Last turn in a game with a round limit, what do you do.....resign yourself to not winning at all, or attack the players with the most troops and hope that something might happen in your favour in the 3 turns (by others) that follow?

Agree yellow's move may not have been the smartest, but there was nothing malicious or underhand in it. The odds against blue holding a 3 card set were 67% - a bet that any rational person would take.

Part of the risk of joining a tourney such as this is you'll end up in games with players who don't always make the right moves. What about the countless other games that have gone before where someone tried a long-odds sweep and failed? Do all the losers in those games also get a free pass for the next tourney? No, of course not.

Chariot of Fire wrote:what do you do.....resign yourself to not winning at all, or attack the players with the most troops and hope that something might happen in your favour in the 3 turns (by others) that follow?

Both Red and I turned in sets that turn as well. Which meant that on Ponez's turn, blue was in first and he attacked the 2nd and 3rd placed players. If he had not done so, Blue would not have won- the set would have been irrelevant.

Yep, understood (re troop count and lead) although you were holding 5 cards and had a definite trade so would be the guaranteed troop leader during R20. He wasn't to know red & blue held 3 card sets. As I say, tricky one, but on looking at it I just think he played more through carelessness than with any malice or deliberate attempt to let the highest rank win.