cheating and abuse discussion

[Kotaro]

I think the current ruling standard is wrong.

Tournaments are not mandatory. If you don't want to play subject to tournament strategies, than don't play tournaments that entice those strategies.

C&A Taking this ruling over is stupid. If this kind of thing is to be policed, it should be done by the Tournament or event organizer and the standard should be stated in the rules.

As stated before. You can't stop biases. You just force players to try to be subtle and then police them on how subtle they were. If the current standard is ever widely understood, have fun with the flood of complaints and investigations.

Tournament > Game

So we should have tournament moderators deciding rulings on tournament games, Tribe moderators doing the same with Tribe events? Should we have Academy Team moderators making decisions on games with New Recruits?

And if tournament/tribe games are not required to follow website rules, they should be excluded from the point system.

[rockfist]

I think the current ruling standard is wrong.

Tournaments are not mandatory. If you don't want to play subject to tournament strategies, than don't play tournaments that entice those strategies.

C&A Taking this ruling over is stupid. If this kind of thing is to be policed, it should be done by the Tournament or event organizer and the standard should be stated in the rules.

As stated before. You can't stop biases. You just force players to try to be subtle and then police them on how subtle they were. If the current standard is ever widely understood, have fun with the flood of complaints and investigations.

Tournament > Game

Again, there should be no opportunity for this in a TRIBE tournament where there are tribe medals. The simplest way to do that is to exclude all games that are not 1v1, polymorphic and team games. Or, for tournies that contain multiplayer games with more than 2 players, limit the tournie to 1 person per tribe with reserves. No two tribe members should end up in a position where they are playing against each other if there is going to be a medal for their tribe at the end. How do you even police that? Do they expect all people not to have biases in a situation that is designed for them to want each other to win.

I'm not saying that it is right to throw a game for your tribe mate to win. I don't particularly like the idea of this strategy. But it's not the fault of the players. It's the fault of the people creating the tournaments. More thought needs to go into this. You leave something open to be abused, and it will be. More and more people will get wise to it due to the reports, and more people will find sneakier ways of doing it. They need to fix the system.

I agree.

[Nut Shot Scott]

I think the current ruling standard is wrong.

Tournaments are not mandatory. If you don't want to play subject to tournament strategies, than don't play tournaments that entice those strategies.

C&A Taking this ruling over is stupid. If this kind of thing is to be policed, it should be done by the Tournament or event organizer and the standard should be stated in the rules.

As stated before. You can't stop biases. You just force players to try to be subtle and then police them on how subtle they were. If the current standard is ever widely understood, have fun with the flood of complaints and investigations.

Tournament > Game

this is a correct, logical, well thought out response that inexlicably nobody will agree with. well done.

[iAmCaffeine]

I think the current ruling standard is wrong.

Tournaments are not mandatory. If you don't want to play subject to tournament strategies, than don't play tournaments that entice those strategies.

C&A Taking this ruling over is stupid. If this kind of thing is to be policed, it should be done by the Tournament or event organizer and the standard should be stated in the rules.

As stated before. You can't stop biases. You just force players to try to be subtle and then police them on how subtle they were. If the current standard is ever widely understood, have fun with the flood of complaints and investigations.

Tournament > Game

Again, there should be no opportunity for this in a TRIBE tournament where there are tribe medals. The simplest way to do that is to exclude all games that are not 1v1, polymorphic and team games. Or, for tournies that contain multiplayer games with more than 2 players, limit the tournie to 1 person per tribe with reserves. No two tribe members should end up in a position where they are playing against each other if there is going to be a medal for their tribe at the end. How do you even police that? Do they expect all people not to have biases in a situation that is designed for them to want each other to win.

I'm not saying that it is right to throw a game for your tribe mate to win. I don't particularly like the idea of this strategy. But it's not the fault of the players. It's the fault of the people creating the tournaments. More thought needs to go into this. You leave something open to be abused, and it will be. More and more people will get wise to it due to the reports, and more people will find sneakier ways of doing it. They need to fix the system.

I agree.

but its not exclusive to tribes

[Mad777]

@rockfist: correct the whole thing is at the site level not only for Tribes.

[JPlo64]

The rule should be that you must always play to win.
In a non tournament game, that amounts to the current standard.
But when part of a tournament, the tournament as a whole supersedes the individual tournament games. Thus, strategies that are consistent with playing to win the tournament should be allowed.
I think that would be a much simpler standard.

[groovysmurf]

The rule should be that you must always play to win.
In a non tournament game, that amounts to the current standard.
But when part of a tournament, the tournament as a whole supersedes the individual tournament games. Thus, strategies that are consistent with playing to win the tournament should be allowed.
I think that would be a much simpler standard.

Very well put!
I agree 100%.

[mookiemcgee]

The rule should be that you must always play to win.
In a non tournament game, that amounts to the current standard.
But when part of a tournament, the tournament as a whole supersedes the individual tournament games. Thus, strategies that are consistent with playing to win the tournament should be allowed.
I think that would be a much simpler standard.

Very well put!
I agree 100%.

I agree with this... but it doesn't really answer the 'other' question about tribe tourneys where 1 player throws a game for another to win.

I lean towards just not allowing big 'every man for himself' games where tribe mates are 'opponents' in the game(s) but 'teammates' in the tourney. There is just no good way to police that, and if it's allowable it's going to piss off alot of the people.

[JPlo64]

The rule should be that you must always play to win.
In a non tournament game, that amounts to the current standard.
But when part of a tournament, the tournament as a whole supersedes the individual tournament games. Thus, strategies that are consistent with playing to win the tournament should be allowed.
I think that would be a much simpler standard.

Very well put!
I agree 100%.

I agree with this... but it doesn't really answer the 'other' question about tribe tourneys where 1 player throws a game for another to win.

I lean towards just not allowing big 'every man for himself' games where tribe mates are 'opponents' in the game(s) but 'teammates' in the tourney. There is just no good way to police that, and if it's allowable it's going to piss off alot of the people.

I agree that it's not a great situation and can be considered poor tournament design. However, there are many imperfectly designed tournaments. I wouldn't outlaw these kinds of tournaments. When a player joins such a tournament, it's their fault. They didn't have to join. They joined on their own free will. There is nothing to complain about.

[mookiemcgee]

The rule should be that you must always play to win.
In a non tournament game, that amounts to the current standard.
But when part of a tournament, the tournament as a whole supersedes the individual tournament games. Thus, strategies that are consistent with playing to win the tournament should be allowed.
I think that would be a much simpler standard.

Very well put!
I agree 100%.

I agree with this... but it doesn't really answer the 'other' question about tribe tourneys where 1 player throws a game for another to win.

I lean towards just not allowing big 'every man for himself' games where tribe mates are 'opponents' in the game(s) but 'teammates' in the tourney. There is just no good way to police that, and if it's allowable it's going to piss off alot of the people.

I agree that it's not a great situation and can be considered poor tournament design. However, there are many imperfectly designed tournaments. I wouldn't outlaw these kinds of tournaments. When a player joins such a tournament, it's their fault. They didn't have to join. They joined on their own free will. There is nothing to complain about.

There are many imperfectly designed tourneys...

Personally, and I'm only speaking for myself... but a non-team game/tournament is a non-team game/tournament. We already have teams games, and i don't think there is any 'skill' (or fun) involved in people organizing behind the scenes as they steal games (I'm not suggesting this is happening, but it's where this road leads). It's kinda like the fix is in before the game/tourney starts if I'm on my own in an 8 person but three other people are all playing 'together'. The whole thing just kinda feels like Tanya Harding is just waiting for the 19th round of my 20 round game to start before she kneecaps me.

The obvious alternative which was already mentioned was limit the amount of people from each tribe to 1 for each iteration of the tourney (thinking mainly of the Olympic ones here)

[Keefie]

The rule should be that you must always play to win.
In a non tournament game, that amounts to the current standard.
But when part of a tournament, the tournament as a whole supersedes the individual tournament games. Thus, strategies that are consistent with playing to win the tournament should be allowed.
I think that would be a much simpler standard.

Hard to argue with that

[iAmCaffeine]

JPLo just repeated what I've been saying this whole time lol

[shoop76]

JPLo just repeated what I've been saying this whole time lol

And I said it first

I think

[Caymanmew]

The rule should be that you must always play to win.
In a non tournament game, that amounts to the current standard.
But when part of a tournament, the tournament as a whole supersedes the individual tournament games. Thus, strategies that are consistent with playing to win the tournament should be allowed.
I think that would be a much simpler standard.

I am also going to agree with this.

IMO the idea that I need to sit back and die is ridiculous. If I do nothing to even attempt to improve my chances at victory in either the game or the tournament but rather sit back and wait to lose then THAT is game throwing. Not even trying to improve your position IS game throwing. I'd never be willing to do that, rule or not, I play to win and I will do whatever I can to improve my tournament position.

In terms of the discussion on limiting 1 tribemate to an event or tribe tournament game, that oftentimes can't be done as the player base simply isn't there to impose such limits and also fill games, not with tribes being as large as they are.

[Shannon Apple]

I think the current ruling standard is wrong.

Tournaments are not mandatory. If you don't want to play subject to tournament strategies, than don't play tournaments that entice those strategies.

C&A Taking this ruling over is stupid. If this kind of thing is to be policed, it should be done by the Tournament or event organizer and the standard should be stated in the rules.

As stated before. You can't stop biases. You just force players to try to be subtle and then police them on how subtle they were. If the current standard is ever widely understood, have fun with the flood of complaints and investigations.

Tournament > Game

Again, there should be no opportunity for this in a TRIBE tournament where there are tribe medals. The simplest way to do that is to exclude all games that are not 1v1, polymorphic and team games. Or, for tournies that contain multiplayer games with more than 2 players, limit the tournie to 1 person per tribe with reserves. No two tribe members should end up in a position where they are playing against each other if there is going to be a medal for their tribe at the end. How do you even police that? Do they expect all people not to have biases in a situation that is designed for them to want each other to win.

I'm not saying that it is right to throw a game for your tribe mate to win. I don't particularly like the idea of this strategy. But it's not the fault of the players. It's the fault of the people creating the tournaments. More thought needs to go into this. You leave something open to be abused, and it will be. More and more people will get wise to it due to the reports, and more people will find sneakier ways of doing it. They need to fix the system.

I agree.

but its not exclusive to tribes

I understand that, but these recent batch of complaints, and the one linked in the OP is referring to helping tribe mates win games. The potential for abuse is a lot higher in this case because there are multiple people involved. Have some of them been spurious? Absolutely. But, it would be solved by changing how tribe tournies are played.

As for single's tournaments, that's a lot more grey, imo. If someone is deliberately targeting a specific player across an entire tournie or multiple games just because they are a potential threat, then they should get called down for that. Being on the receiving end of something like that would suck. But knocking someone out in the later stages because that one game is going to ensure them the win, I don't really see the huge problem with that. Unsportsmanlike maybe, but human.

I do think they are two very different scenerios.

[dkmaster]

So a lot of you guys wants this scenario ?

We have have seen players like josko suicide against a possible thread for tournament win early in a tournament. We have even seen him admittedly send in a tribe mate to suicide against a player , in a game josko was not even in, for josko to have a better chance for a single tournament win with a ton of games and tournaments still ongoing in the Olympics.

We have seen players like Icepack suicide into players from other tribes in a lot of games just to prevent them from scoring points in the Olympics. Also even though he was the only one from his tribe in those particularly games. And doing this to help his tribe win the overall Olympics.

In the past there was an unwritten rule about going for victory in the last game of a tournament. But we have time after time seen players getting more and more greedy and do it more and more early.

So if every player is allowed to suicide against any player they feel is threathening their chances for a win in a tournament from first game. Then we will see a lot of suicides in every game from the start of a tournament. Because who is to judge if a general or a cook think he has a chance to win and just go for it ? And where is the fun in that ?

Limiting to only one player from each tribe in a multi game wont help enough, if that player is allowed to suicide against a player from another tribe who is a thread for his tribes overall tournament win. He can just say that he as playing for the win in that particularly tournament and was trying to eliminate someones chances againt him.

I do not say it is easy to make these rules. But allowing every single player to suicide into any player they want to in every game from the start of a tournament. Well that seems like a not so fun way to play

[IcePack]

We have seen players like Icepack suicide into players from other tribes...

Didn’t suicide

For this report, we are clearing them

Well that seems like a not so fun way to play

Then don’t play. Meta gaming the tournament and playing to win the overall competition at the time was legal. And again, no matter how much you and fairman want to cry about it, I didn’t suicide anybody. Did I attack early? Absolutely. I didn’t attack down to 1’s to completely eliminate your chance or my own. But absolutely, I targeted my main opponent first as 1) they were the strongest player so I eliminate their attack advantage who will utilize their troops the best 2) for it helped overal in the tournament.

A couple games, my defense dice sucked and I was way behind early and the strategy bit me more than others. But I can’t control my defense dice (nor my offense) only what I’m attempting to accomplish. But I never, ever suicided into someone down to 1’s and didn’t intend on trying to win the game or tournament. I always had the intention to attempt to win, both game and tournament, with the broader picture in mind. The funniest thing is in multiple games I was accused of suiciding, that player still WON.

And as I posted above, I was cleared of suiciding. So you can f*** right off

[Keefie]

JPLo just repeated what I've been saying this whole time lol

but JP doesn't have a potty mouth

[dkmaster]

We have seen players like Icepack suicide into players from other tribes...

Didn’t suicide

For this report, we are clearing them

Well that seems like a not so fun way to play

Then don’t play. Meta gaming the tournament and playing to win the overall competition at the time was legal. And again, no matter how much you and fairman want to cry about it, I didn’t suicide anybody. Did I attack early? Absolutely. I didn’t attack down to 1’s to completely eliminate your chance or my own. But absolutely, I targeted my main opponent first as 1) they were the strongest player so I eliminate their attack advantage who will utilize their troops the best 2) for it helped overal in the tournament.

A couple games, my defense dice sucked and I was way behind early and the strategy bit me more than others. But I can’t control my defense dice (nor my offense) only what I’m attempting to accomplish. But I never, ever suicided into someone down to 1’s and didn’t intend on trying to win the game or tournament. I always had the intention to attempt to win, both game and tournament, with the broader picture in mind. The funniest thing is in multiple games I was accused of suiciding, that player still WON.

And as I posted above, I was cleared of suiciding. So you can f*** right off

But still it was joskos, yours and emilywinks questionable tactics that involved sabotaging games that changed the rules back in 2017

Re: Icepack, Josko.ri, Emilywink

Postby TeeGee on 08 Nov 2017 10:15
Firstly, I would like to thank everybody for their patience with this case.
I would also like to thank all the admins, dept leaders, multi hunters and other volunteers who helped with this case.

After taking into consideration all that has been presented, we have come to the conclusion that these actions mentioned here have been influenced or swayed by past rulings in similar tournament related cases such as one where the accuser of this report was the accused:

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=214782#p4723052

If a different ruling was given back then perhaps everyone would have acted differently and this could have been avoided. At the time it was thought reasonable to play using such tactic, as long as it would help you advance to the next round. Looking at it from this point it would seem that we must now re-evaluate questionable tactics that involves sabotaging games for the purpose of advancement. Mad777 has made a very good point that we must always play fairly at all times and never forget to have good sportsmanship above everything regardless if it is a tournament game or not.

For this report, we are clearing them as we believe that their actions were only swayed by my past ruling from similar cases involving tournament games. However, the pre-existing precedent that this is acceptable in tournament games is now removed. Also, multi-player tribe games are to be reviewed by the tournament team and rules regarding them and acceptable actions will be written.

From this point on, all games, no matter what it is, unless specified, shall be subject to all CC rules. This includes tournament and tribe games.

===============

Please don't make the mistake that just because you are in the lead of a game that doesn't mean that you are now 'untouchable' and therefore anyone who attacks you who has a far chance of winning is automatically doing something against the rules. This is still a competitive game and that everyone should never say "die" until the game is over.

And it was promised that the tournament team would review it all and come up with written rules. But as far as I know that did not happen yet. Even though it is 3 years ago.

[shoop76]

And it was promised that the tournament team would review it all and come up with written rules. But as far as I know that did not happen yet. Even though it is 3 years ago.

They don´t like to answer questions. I have questions out on 3 threads that were never answered. Maybe sometimes when there is silence things will just go away on its own.

[IcePack]

But still it was joskos, yours and emilywinks questionable tactics that involved sabotaging games that changed the rules back in 2017

And it was promised that the tournament team would review it all and come up with written rules. But as far as I know that did not happen yet. Even though it is 3 years ago.

If you had said questionable, that’s an opinion and I wouldn’t have replied at all. You said suicide, attempting to state as a fact which it wasn’t. Meta gaming is normal practice in many games and tournaments. It was consistent with the rules in place at the time.

Now for my opinion: I don’t think they should have changed the rules, I agree with others assertions that the tournaments / tribes tournaments themselves should have had the format changed it that’s something they wanted to avoid. The change was a poor one, imo.

Especially with no firm plan on how to deal with the rules, or implementing new ones clearly which didn’t happen. All of the past rulings were consistent up until that point. Now, it’s a mess. It would have been better to keep the original rules then to change without proper implementation.

[iAmCaffeine]

JPLo just repeated what I've been saying this whole time lol

but JP doesn't have a potty mouth

imagine not agreeing with a suggestion because some says mean words

snowflake society

[JPlo64]

The rule should be that you must always play to win.
In a non tournament game, that amounts to the current standard.
But when part of a tournament, the tournament as a whole supersedes the individual tournament games. Thus, strategies that are consistent with playing to win the tournament should be allowed.
I think that would be a much simpler standard.

I am also going to agree with this.

IMO the idea that I need to sit back and die is ridiculous. If I do nothing to even attempt to improve my chances at victory in either the game or the tournament but rather sit back and wait to lose then THAT is game throwing. Not even trying to improve your position IS game throwing. I'd never be willing to do that, rule or not, I play to win and I will do whatever I can to improve my tournament position.

In terms of the discussion on limiting 1 tribemate to an event or tribe tournament game, that oftentimes can't be done as the player base simply isn't there to impose such limits and also fill games, not with tribes being as large as they are.

Yeah, you could not play the same games and limit the tribe membership. You could make it so only poly 1v1 games count for tribe standings maybe.

JPLo just repeated what I've been saying this whole time lol

but JP doesn't have a potty mouth

imagine not agreeing with a suggestion because some says mean words

snowflake society

Agreed.

[ZaBeast]

The rule should be that you must always play to win.
In a non tournament game, that amounts to the current standard.
But when part of a tournament, the tournament as a whole supersedes the individual tournament games. Thus, strategies that are consistent with playing to win the tournament should be allowed.
I think that would be a much simpler standard.

On the individual side, suiciding at round limit on more skilled players in the hopes that they don't advance, on the tournament leader so he doesn't increase his lead or on a player you are competing with for advancement would all increase your chances to win the tournament. Other than a variable amount of points, you don't lose anything by throwing a game that you can't win (assuming the scoring is not based on final position), so any advantage you can get from game throwing would technically increase your chances to win the tournament. The same can be said about tribe tournaments. Suiciding on someone from a tribe you're competing with so a mate or someone from a lower ranked tribe can win might also improve your chances as a tribe to win the meta tournament.

I hope you can see how players suiciding left and right for any theoretical edge in the tournament would make them a lot less enjoyable and the winner much more unpredictable and luck based. I'm not saying that's what the situation was before that ruling, but it opens the door to such a situation. If you don't want to leave that door open, you have to draw a line somewhere. However, any line you will set will be arbitrary. Should someone currently ranked n prevent the player ranked (n-1) to overtake him, provided the prize is different between both positions? Could you suicide on the leader if you're y games behind with only x games left? What about if there's only (x-1) games left, or you're (y+1) games behind? And it goes on and on. Let's assume that the line is that game throwing is allowed only if it ensures you gain from it, which, I believe, is the one that was in place earlier based on this ruling.

Given that this is different to the other previous cases and that we have no guarantee that the action of caff would see him advance, This case is NOTED

Let's say we have player A which is in the lead due to game a, but wouldn't keep it if player B wins game b, which is the very last game of the tournament. Had game b finished before game a, player B would have had an unbeatable lead because player A wouldn't have been allowed to throw game b then. Which makes completely no sense. Player A is allowed to throw a game to win the tournament only by virtue of winning game a before player B can win game b. But if you allow player A to throw game b in the hopes that he gets to win a following game, you get back to where you should draw the line. In hindsight, player B would have benefited from throwing game a so player A wouldn't catch up to him. But player A might have benefited from throwing an even earlier game, game c, that gave player B the lead before he got it back with game a, and so on and so forth.

The other main argument used to protest the current ruling is that it means that 1 game> 1 tournament
That is simply not true. You're advocating for a way to bypass the tournament scoring system by making a win by an opponent not count by throwing the game. If player A has more wins than player B by sole virtue of throwing games that player B would have won, is the tournament win going to the more deserving player?

Tournaments are not mandatory. If you don't want to play subject to tournament strategies, than don't play tournaments that entice those strategies.

In line with the above, why shouldn't people who can't accept to play tournaments the way they're intended to be played be the ones to not join tournaments?

So no, not a desirable standard, or a simpler one to make. I am not denying your previous point that this ruling might just force people who want to manipulate the tournament scoring system to be more subtle about that, but you can't oppose virtue.