Tournament Newsletter Poll: Tournaments and Rules (over)

[Gozar]

Vote and thoughts welcome.

[PaulusH]

Question to come.

I vote: yes good plan

[Woodruff]

My personal view is that the tournaments are outside of the "normal" run of Conquer Club. That doesn't mean they're not subject to moderation and things like that, but if someone joins a tournament with an extraordinary rule (such as hidden diplomacy), then they know that when they sign up for the tournament. So while it's not following the letter of the rule, it's really not breaking the intent of the no-hidden-diplomacy rule either, in my opinion, because it's not taking advantage of anyone.

[banana_hammocks]

Many tournament games/ settings already break CC rules.

I would bet that in any tournament in which points are awarded in a league style depending on where you finish the unwritten rules are sometimes/often broken.

"This includes but is not limited to: throwing games"

I'll give you the situation...It is standard game play. There is one person who is obviously the strongest. There are 4 players remaining and you are about to be taken out within the next go or two. Another player is in a similar position to you.

In a standard game: Only matters if you win 3rd/4th place are no different....You work with the other players to try and kill off the top spot, even if you don't have any real chance.

In a tournament game: You may choose to kill off the other weak player to make sure of your 3rd spot and extra points in the league, rather than risking being taken out first and coming 4th.


Another situation where this often occurs is where the set up of the tournament is where only the first player eliminated gets knocked out. Here if one player starts getting weak the rational thing to do is to take them out to progress within the tournament, and then worry about winning the game.

[jpcloet]

Yes but it depends on to what extent. Some bending is good for creativity, however, out-right breaking of the rules could be bad. Need another option on the poll.

Eg. Against - I do not like the idea of 3 vs 2 games or 2 vs 1 games etc.

Eg. For - My Deadly Vipers Tournament could be conceived as stalking, however, with a limit of 3 attempts, the TD's agreed it was ok.

[Gozar]

Yes but it depends on to what extent. Some bending is good for creativity, however, out-right breaking of the rules could be bad. Need another option on the poll.

Sounds like you should vote yes. I didn't want to make the poll too complex. I wanted something simple: "Yes, rules can be broken/flexed/bent/stretched in some cases" or "No, rules are rules. Period"

Good to see some discussion happening on this one. Excellent comment from banana_hammocks, throwing games does go on all the time in tournaments. I also agree with Woodruff's point about the letter of the rules. Most of the rules are here to prevent, say, Gilligan and I joining a bunch of standard games and taking advantage of unsuspecting players. With everything 'above board' with tournament rules, people would know what they are getting into.

[TaCktiX]

Yes I think they should be allowed outside the purview of normal CC rules SO LONG as the exceptions are fully enforced. So if hidden diplomacy (backstabbers, e.g.) is allowed, rules for situations appropriate for it must be established in the tournament, and the organizer make no exceptions. I've got a tournament going on right now that counts a game past Round 50 as complete, and no points awarded. That's not under CC rules, but I've fully enforced the rule throughout the tournament.

[jpcloet]

Sounds like you should vote yes.

I did vote yes.

Excellent comment from banana_hammocks, throwing games does go on all the time in tournaments.

Not just throwing games but also "pick on the tournament leader" even when they are not in the lead in a particular game.

[Natewolfman]

I do not speak for team CC in anyway on this, it is just my opinion. I have always believed the rule is somewhat dumb, as long as players know what is going on, know about secret diplomacy, know about whatever rule is different from regular CC rules, it should be ok. So I vote a prominent yes, however until rules change, I have no choice but to stop said tournaments unfortunately.

[ZionT]

I don't post much on issues like this, but I think tournaments are the heart of the core CC community. They are what make this site superior to just another gaming site and really allow tournament directors, players, and the CC community a certain level of unique creativity that is their "own". In business, customer customization is the "new" hot button for success. Especially with the dawn of the internet, individual rules are meant to be broken. It is inherently a forum which demands rule breaking by allowing freedoms allowed nowhere else.

Why would you want it any differently when it comes to CC? I don't see any benefit to this particular rule as well as many rules when they fall under the tournament banner. There are certain tournaments that require you to initiate diplomacy in order to gain "points" or prevent your opponents from gaining "points". This is the third level of strategy that is missing from regular games because it's based on previous results. That shouldn't be hindered especially with maps and gameplay that continue to expand and make for more opportunity. Take Arms Race!, Supermax Prison Riot, the unique goal maps "CC Mogul, Qwert's Europa, Qwert's Peloponessia, Oasis, and on and on." These maps continue to expand the possibilities of secrecy, diplomacy, and goal setting which was created for more options in gameplay.

Let the tournament directors apply for "rule breaking" authority, site the rule they intend to break, and let Natewolfman or whomever determine it's validity. Conquer Club is a wonderful mix of business minds and creative thinking all with the goal of creating options and added value, why inhibit it?

[Gozar]

A silent majority seems to be currently in favour of no rule flexibility, but none have commented. Anyone care to present another side to the debate?

[samuelc812]

Yes but only because it is in a tournament environment where everyone knows that hidden diplomacy is going on The players would know going into the tournament that there will be some rule breaking so "if you join don't whine" sort of thing.

[MrBenn]

I've voted for No, on the premise that it would give people a (semi-legitimate) excuse for rule-breaking outside of the rule-breaking tournament.

While I appreciate that tournament games require a slightly different mentality than isolated casual games, anything that encourages rule-breaking should be discouraged.... If somebody discovers some form of abuse (secret alliances, account-sharing, throwing games) that yields success in a game where that behaviour is permitted, there is nothing to stop them committing the same abuse in other games.

Here are some ready-made excuses:

• This thread says that it is fine to make truces/alliances through PMs
• My friend showed me theses games he won using the same tactics, and he got a medal for it.
• I'm playing in a tournament which allows that behaviour, I thought I was playing one of those games.

etc.

[cairnswk]

I've voted for No, on the premise that it would give people a (semi-legitimate) excuse for rule-breaking outside of the rule-breaking tournament.

While I appreciate that tournament games require a slightly different mentality than isolated casual games, anything that encourages rule-breaking should be discouraged.... If somebody discovers some form of abuse (secret alliances, account-sharing, throwing games) that yields success in a game where that behaviour is permitted, there is nothing to stop them committing the same abuse in other games.

Here are some ready-made excuses:

• This thread says that it is fine to make truces/alliances through PMs
• My friend showed me theses games he won using the same tactics, and he got a medal for it.
• I'm playing in a tournament which allows that behaviour, I thought I was playing one of those games.

etc.

I have to agree with MrBenn on this. Rules is rules. If you want to break them, then that creates precedence for new conditions to exist. Do you wish to deal with all those precedences? I voted no.

[reptile]

i voted no.... it will be abused and there will be non stop people complaining about it.

not to mention it can be used for point hoarding too

[jesusfreak16]

I don't know about tournaments, but some no-holds-barred games would be interesting (but still ban abuse in chat and things like that)
hey, that rhymes. am I good or what

[kratos644]

I've voted for No, on the premise that it would give people a (semi-legitimate) excuse for rule-breaking outside of the rule-breaking tournament.

While I appreciate that tournament games require a slightly different mentality than isolated casual games, anything that encourages rule-breaking should be discouraged.... If somebody discovers some form of abuse (secret alliances, account-sharing, throwing games) that yields success in a game where that behaviour is permitted, there is nothing to stop them committing the same abuse in other games.

Here are some ready-made excuses:

• This thread says that it is fine to make truces/alliances through PMs
• My friend showed me theses games he won using the same tactics, and he got a medal for it.
• I'm playing in a tournament which allows that behaviour, I thought I was playing one of those games.

etc.

Tournament games are clearly labeled so that excuse should be out right from the start.
There could be a standard disclaimer in all tourney threads that would break these rules saying something such as. "Secret Diplomacy is allowed for this tournament but do not attempt to do so in your other games. The following will possibly result in a ban."

I think this would open up even more creativity for us Organizers and make the tournaments even more interesting. Tournaments are what make CC, and if we didn't have tournaments things would get pretty boring here. I'm in support of being able to bend the rule in tournament play when it is clearly stated in the thread. In a way this would only partially be secret diplomacy because everyone would know it's allowed therefore everyone would expect it.

[KidWhisky]

I voted yes because I like the tourny creators who come up with new original ideas for tournys. It would get pretty boring if all the tournys run were simple brackets. In order for the tournaments and the tournament forums to contunue to move forward the organisers need to be able to flex those creativity muscles. Tournaments like jpcloet's deadly vipers tourny is a prime example. It is a great idea that never would have happened without a little rule bending. I really like these kinds of tournaments and would like to see more in the future.

[Frito Bandito]

I voted no.
Especially in tournaments. Tournaments are the one venue where I feel that the playing field is relatively level, that I am not stepping into some the fray against an unspoken cabal among the opposition to remove the non-member.

[Hoagy]

I too vote 'no', for similar reasons to those given above.

In some tournaments where the rounds are a number of games decided by the whoever wins the most games (or anything similar), smart players will co-operate if one player gets an early lead, without having to resort to secret diplomacy (i.e. PMing each other), to ensure that the round leader does not put them out of the tournament.

Having 'quirks' to make the tournament more interesting is fine, as long as this is properly thought out. An example of this is the Assassination Terminator tournament. All the games were terminator setting, and the organiser PMed the entrants with their assassination target, for which they got extra tournament points if they eliminated them in the game (unfortunately, in this tournament the organiser cocked it up a bit and PMed the wrong targets to some of the entrants).