Conquer Club

lancehoch wrote:Not an official statement:

I just get the feeling that this is opening the door to secret diplomacy. The site specifically has rules against the gameplay you are looking to achieve. So, why should they tell everyone else that secret diplomacy is bad, but tell you that your tournament, based on secret diplomacy, is ok?

Indeed a good point.

ofthe wrote:hey guys,

I have an idea for a tournament which is going to be really interesting. What I need is individuals (or bring your team of 3) for my games. They will involve a bit of a twist to the game. A randomly generated player from either team is going to be a spy for his/her opponents. The spy's teamates won't know which of the players is the spy. The team of 3 which doesn't contain the spy (which has the spy working for them) will know who the spy is after X amount of turns (set by me).
Therefore, the spy will want his normal team to lose, so it is essentially 4 v 2. guys, i'm not sure if it will work, so please join in and we can tweak it so we can develop my upcoming tournament.

Mmmm.... You come up with an interesting idea (which is good), wondering "if it will work". Then when people tell you why it will not work, you get your knickers in a twist (not good).

Lx

ofthe wrote:Choose my words wisely? I did! I chose my words very wisely. Right now I am very annoyed and in keeping respect with the organisers of this site, i think declaring shame where shame is due, is fair enough.

And yet you haven't done that. All Gilligan has done is uphold the site's rules, as is his required duty. Any "shame" doesn't lie with him.

ofthe wrote:Why shame? Because here I am, trying to put on a tournament, wanting the support of the tournament directors...and I get spat in the face.

It's great that you had some creativity with your tournament idea...I've already applauded that earlier in the thread. But nobody at all has done anything remotely near to "spitting in your face". Gilligan certainly hasn't.

You really do need to check your crappy attitude at the door.

@lancehoch: Fair enough, that's a pretty reasonable argument. But I would make it clear that this kind of gameplay would not overrun into standard games. Although, i don't think it would open the floodgates to secret diplomacy legalization because tournaments are in a seperate league to standard public games. It's not even a secret diplomacy because each team will know at the start of the game that A: one of their teamates (or themselves) is a spy and B: one of the opposition players is actually working for them.
Spies will be told at round 1 they are the spy. There is no secret diplomacys because the teams are set. There are two defined teams. The only difference between this and a normal game is that you don't know who your real teamates are. And I will repeat for the hundredth time, particpants will know crystal clear how the games are to be played, and they will know all of the information I have been posting in this thread.

@Lindax: Alright, since that post, the conditions have been changhed so it's 4v4, one spy on each team. When i said, "i'm not sure if it will work", I was talking about the gameplay. I wasn't sure whether 4v2 was going to be fair. In the end, I realised that the spy may as well turn on his teamates early in the game and use the 4 players to overpower the 2. That is what I meant. I was talking about the gameplay. What everybody has pointed out is an issue to do with the fundamental rules of CC, which has nothing to do with the gameplay. I never saw this as an issue because I presumed that tournaments had a bit of leniency which could be used to make interesting situations and take strategy to the next level.

Night Strike wrote:
I'm glad I dropped by. JP is correct, this is not allowed in a tournament, and probably shouldn't be allowed in Callouts either.

Gilligan wrote:

ofthe wrote:edit: alright, jp, I really want this to go ahead, so who should I be contacting to talk about it?

You've already got your answer. This idea is full of secret diplomacy, and to an extent serial teammate killing which are both against site rules.

I guess the above posts just show that the TDs are not really caring about my idea but trying to get rid of me as quick as possible. Maybe if they were less abrupt I would be more understanding. The way I look at it, the answer is "No, because rules are rules and stop trying to think outside the box, young fella." IMO, that equates to spitting in my face because they are not reasoning with me...

jpcloet wrote:Did you clear this with a TD?

Unless you state clearly what the spy can and cannot do, this is a predefined secret diplomacy and not allowed.

Key word: Unless

I am stating clearly to all particpants what the spy can and cannot do (and what all players can do) as part of the tournament brief and a personal PM to all particpants so that everybody is clear on the rules. Therefore it is not a secret diplomacy...

ofthe wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

ofthe wrote:edit: alright, jp, I really want this to go ahead, so who should I be contacting to talk about it?

You've already got your answer. This idea is full of secret diplomacy, and to an extent serial teammate killing which are both against site rules.

Well, this is a real shame. Shame on you, Gilligan.

SHAME ON YOU, FOOL!

Abandon the idea!

@ofthe

The TD's are not responsible for brainstorming, just whether your tournament is valid. The other players here will help to some degree, but my experience with new innovative tournaments is that they take some time to plan and sometimes are not possible. Having teammates attack teammates is just a bad idea, sorry. My current Deadly Vipers Tournament took several months to plan and I got clearance on the attempts rule. It has a number of new or rarely used features, maybe you can get some inspiration from it.

I have yet to figure out a way to get multiplayer games into a 2-clan challenge that doesn't break the Secret Diplomacy rule as there would be predefined teams, ie. clans Eg. Say you have 4 people designated as a team on a terminator team. Players 1,3,5,7 from one clan and 2,4,6,8 from the other. This breaks the Secret Dimplomacy rule. One of several ideas I had to abandon.

As for "wording", your first post still doesn't specifically say that the spy will be expected to attack his teammates.

As for ideas:
What if the spy only gave information? Eg. Each round Team 2 asks the spy on team 1, a question like, does player 1 hold the O bonus on Classic shapes? The spy then has to answer. This may be tedious to do via pm, and not sure how you would monitor or ensure the spy answers in a timely basis.

Thank-you jp, but I'm going to have to chuck it in. As you said, it would be too hard to regulate for spies to give information each turn. Delete this thread or whatever you're meant to do....I'll see if I can think of anything else in the meantime...

ofthe, we are not trying to spit on your face. It is our duty to maintain the rules of CC inside of the tournament forum, it is not a place where rules can be violated because of its nature.

That said, let's look at the Rules page.

Rules wrote: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, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new members.

Rules wrote:
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, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new members.

Gilligan,if i understand good,these rules is for people who have secret alliances,who nobody knows,but if you have tournament where these is announce,and where people know that someon in hes team is spy,i dont understand how can these be a brake of rules. These is concept of these tournament, and i must say that you all ready have some examples where is not importan your team mate.
If Tournament have hes rules,who explane to all people that someon in hes team is spy,then i dont see any problem. If you want to have some control over tournament,then TD can get list of all spyes,and can observe tournament progress.

qwert wrote:

Rules wrote:
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, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new members.

Gilligan,if i understand good,these rules is for people who have secret alliances,who nobody knows,but if you have tournament where these is announce,and where people know that someon in hes team is spy,i dont understand how can these be a brake of rules. These is concept of these tournament, and i must say that you all ready have some examples where is not importan your team mate.
If Tournament have hes rules,who explane to all people that someon in hes team is spy,then i dont see any problem. If you want to have some control over tournament,then TD can get list of all spyes,and can observe tournament progress.

I agree with qwert. If everyone is upfront, how is this a problem? It certainly is not a 'gross abuse of the game'

Ha! Just when I had given up the idea I get some support....

Gilligan?

I would be interested in giving this a go btw.

Gozar wrote:I agree with qwert. If everyone is upfront, how is this a problem? It certainly is not a 'gross abuse of the game'

The precedent has been set previously on several occasions that tournaments endorsing activities that break site rules will not be allowed. At this time that isn't a precedent that is going to be changed.

Regards, OP

Boourns.

ofthe wrote:Ha! Just when I had given up the idea I get some support....

Gilligan?

For the record I love innovation, and in fact ive often joined tournaments souly to support special ideas. If I remember correctly similar ideas have been denied in the past, 8-way games with secret diplomacy and what not. It is a neat idea to be sure, but when the red names lay down the law, there is little we TD's can do.

Again though its a neat idea, I personally would like to see what else you can come up with, just stay away from stuff that goes against general rules and im sure you will have something great to give us!

The precedent has been set previously on several occasions that tournaments endorsing activities that break site rules will not be allowed. At this time that isn't a precedent that is going to be changed.

Then you can create new rules who will alove for tournament purposes these options.

"Secret aliances is only alove in specific tournaments who need to anonce that ,and who will be observed from Tournament Directory moderators"

Its very simple to create new rules,ofcourse these again depend of few people who is charge here.

Yes qwert, it is very easy to change the rules. It's just that it will not happen.

I sit here baffled that this has not been locked, it seems he has gotten his answer and that there is no more to be said and all further posts are spam.
ofthe, you have not been allowed to create this tournament, game over, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars

I admitted defeat a while back...but it's other people who are still arguing about it. I don't mind, because they might have more influence over the Tournament directors, although just remember it's not me who's still commenting (besides this comment..lol..)

Though the point is moot and discussion pretty much over, in the interest of debate I put forward that it is the letter of the law being enforced here, and not the intent with which it was crafted.

I don't mean to bump a dead topic, but this got me thinking, and I was wondering what the community thought about it:

The classic game that is only somewhat similar to this in nature, although played with miniature figurines on a table top, had an option for "secret missions" which were cards you drew that said things like "Own 35 territories", "Own North America" "Kill Yellow" or "Own Australia and Mexico".

Could this be used to allow for players to avoid secret diplomacy but allow for some interesting objectives? Would a tournament based around this be allowable?

You might have say, Blue protecting Green because it seemed like Yellow was targeting him, or Red allowing Slate to Hold S.A. because all Red needed was 35 territories. But it would not allow for secret diplomacy or other unusual rules, right?