Kiron Conqueror - Abuse or Legal play?

[kentington]

Still curious:

"at which moment is the rule broken?"

The rule was broken before the game even started.

Why exactly? Because they are friends in real life?

This is not to mention the case I posted was abstract and did not involve friends (I was planning to add the frindship addendum later on). I'm trying to get people to think here and explain why they think something is right or wrong.

I think the reason you didn't really get the responses to your case is because the case isn't really similar. As you say step 6 is different, but also the friendship. The friendship alone makes it a completely different case.

[DoomYoshi]

Still curious:

"at which moment is the rule broken?"

The rule was broken before the game even started.

That is truly the next metaphysical approach to Conquer Club. It's almost pataphysical in its splendor.

[DoomYoshi]

Anyways, Rodion, in your example none of the moments are rule-breaking. Moment 9 is the closest to being a suicide, but you can't force someone to attack, so it doesn't qualify.

Anyone who claims that rule 6 is a broken rule will have an uphill battle in explaining things. The reason we have a chat box is so we can do diplomacy. The reason we have diplomacy is so players who have poor board position/intensity cubes can still win the game.

For interest's sake, Rodion, what option did you pick in the poll?

[Rodion]

I think the reason you didn't really get the responses to your case is because the case isn't really similar. As you say step 6 is different, but also the friendship. The friendship alone makes it a completely different case.

They kinda are.

As far as step 6 goes, they just used an 87.5% random generator outside the game, but they could have just as easily RNGed inside it (Castille vs. Granada attack).

As far as the friendship aspect, the "original deal" that set the precedent to Kiron losing that Antarctica game (that subsequently set the precedent for Kiron to use it recently) was struck between MC and me. MC and I were not friends, but after playing some games against him and reading some of his forum posts I respected him enough as a rational player that I was positive he'd listen to what I had to say. Anyway, the deal went on and it worked succesfully. Since breaking truces make people trust you less and maintaning truces make people trust you more, there was enough trust to warrant a second attempt at a deal later on in another Third Crusade game (we were still not friends). The second deal worked.

Since we were not friends, could we have done this forever? Or would we have "become friends" at some point after playing multiple games together? When precisely?

The point I'm trying to make is that knowing your opponent's thought process can force players to react a certain way. For instance, if you know someone tends to suicide on whoever attacks him first, you'll learn not to attack that player when joining diplomacy games against him. 100 games later, after you've seen him suicide on 100 enemies (never against you, because you're too smart to attack him in the first place), there's a good chance you'll be accused of having an alliance with him. I mean, Bruce will say that you should have been the victim of 14 out of his 100 (roughly one seventh) suicide attempts and that being "good" would make you perhaps a little less likely to suffer that (say, 8-9 suicide attempts over 100 games), but 0 is just too much! Is there really a shady alliance going on or do people just "know" how to deal with one another?

My opinion is that some of those players (Kiron, Xiang, Kaskavel, MC, Gonakuruto, SirJohn, Snyder and I - to name a few) just know how the others think and that inevitably changes the way they interact with one another. No previous alliance is needed at all. Period.

[Rodion]

Anyways, Rodion, in your example none of the moments are rule-breaking. Moment 9 is the closest to being a suicide, but you can't force someone to attack, so it doesn't qualify.

Anyone who claims that rule 6 is a broken rule will have an uphill battle in explaining things. The reason we have a chat box is so we can do diplomacy. The reason we have diplomacy is so players who have poor board position/intensity cubes can still win the game.

For interest's sake, Rodion, what option did you pick in the poll?

I did not vote yet. I'm more interested in dissecting the whole situation. If I ever vote, I'll let you know.

[Kiron]

I think the reason you didn't really get the responses to your case is because the case isn't really similar. As you say step 6 is different, but also the friendship. The friendship alone makes it a completely different case.

They kinda are.

As far as step 6 goes, they just used an 87.5% random generator outside the game, but they could have just as easily RNGed inside it (Castille vs. Granada attack).

As far as the friendship aspect, the "original deal" that set the precedent to Kiron losing that Antarctica game (that subsequently set the precedent for Kiron to use it recently) was struck between MC and me. MC and I were not friends, but after playing some games against him and reading some of his forum posts I respected him enough as a rational player that I was positive he'd listen to what I had to say. Anyway, the deal went on and it worked succesfully. Since breaking truces make people trust you less and maintaning truces make people trust you more, there was enough trust to warrant a second attempt at a deal later on in another Third Crusade game (we were still not friends). The second deal worked.

Since we were not friends, could we have done this forever? Or would we have "become friends" at some point after playing multiple games together? When precisely?

The point I'm trying to make is that knowing your opponent's thought process can force players to react a certain way. For instance, if you know someone tends to suicide on whoever attacks him first, you'll learn not to attack that player when joining diplomacy games against him. 100 games later, after you've seen him suicide on 100 enemies (never against you, because you're too smart to attack him in the first place), there's a good chance you'll be accused of having an alliance with him. I mean, Bruce will say that you should have been the victim of 14 out of his 100 (roughly one seventh) suicide attempts and that being "good" would make you perhaps a little less likely to suffer that (say, 8-9 suicide attempts over 100 games), but 0 is just too much! Is there really a shady alliance going on or do people just "know" how to deal with one another?

My opinion is that some of those players (Kiron, Xiang, Kaskavel, MC, Gonakuruto, SirJohn, Snyder and I - to name a few) just know how the others think and that inevitably changes the way they interact with one another. No previous alliance is needed at all. Period.

Very good point! I know when I make deals with these people they mostly keep it and know when I demilitirize my borders with them, they won't attack my 1s randomly!

[Chariot of Fire]

Am I the only one to see a pattern in their gameplay? Yeah....I have a lot of spare time

[game]12405498[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective after xiangwang/Kiron play out the last 3 turns consecutively (K/X/K)
[game]12395303[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective after xiangwang/Kiron play out the last 3 turns consecutively (K/X/K)
[game]12355651[/game] - xiangwang holds the Objective (slate played just 16 secs after X ended turn, so presumably K didn't have time or even need to start turn)
[game]12294310[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective (green played 51 secs after K ended turn, so presumably X didn't have time or even need to start turn)
[game]12056016[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective after xiangwang/Kiron play out the last 3 turns consecutively (K/X/K)
[game]10769124[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective after xiangwang allows him to get Granada as they play consecutive turns in the penultimate round (this is one of my faves - red drops all on the redundant Castile and later writes in chat "Nice yellow, so used to defending spain so lightly that i forget granada could be attacked". Lol, after how many games on this map and knowing exactly what the Objective is! The previous round X cleared the way for K to take Antioch by removing grey from Coris/Edessa. So blatant it's obvious.
[game]10673863[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective after xiangwang in the penultimate round cleared orange off Antioch with a full drop on Coris (and then forted off it), paving the way for Kiron
[game]8572108[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective even tho in the penultimate round xiangwang can see he is holding Vatican and had the cards & stack to take Jerusalem & Antioch
[game]8095651[/game] - xiangwang holds the Objective after taking The Vatican (which Kiron conveniently forted off !! the previous turn)
[game]7484252[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective. In game chat cyan says "2010-08-26 04:57:29 - Jeanne d Arc: you are never willing to attack Kiron red, typical that you almost anytime play together and almost anytime one of you is winning"
[game]7370815[/game] - xiangwang holds the Objective. This is despite Kiron playing the last turn and having a 25 deploy, knowing X had the objective, and being quite capable of hitting Antioch and/or Jerusalem. Instead Kiron just went harmlessly to Malta and let X win.
[game]7306611[/game] - xiangwang holds the Objective after the previous turn Kiron cleared all of cyan away from Jerusalem/Antioch area and then forted away from there (to Nicomedia!)
[game]7306608[/game] - xiangwang holds the Objective. Chat reveals X & K remove all their troops from their mutual borders (neither will attack the other you see, not until it's to take the Objective)
[game]7271383[/game] - xiangwang holds the Objective after a consecutive K & X move the previous round. No attempt to break or take by Kiron despite dropping 18 and being next to Jeruslaem & Antioch (or nearby). Instead he harmlessly hits Arles. The Objective is out of reach for him as Granada is unfeasible and X already has Vatican, so game goes to X.
[game]7210664[/game] - Kiron won the game. From chat (aimed at K & X) "14 02:01:29 - jjleblanc25: you two are definitely cheating"
[game]7120112[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective after xiangwang/Kiron play out the last 3 turns consecutively (K/X/K)
[game]7062062[/game] - xiangwang won the game. Red & blue (X & K) pretty much tag team for most of the game, not attacking each other but methodically taking out the other players.
[game]6907151[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective after xiangwang/Kiron play out the last 4 turns consecutively (X/K/X/K). Antioch left wide open by X, who also conveniently starts his turn immediately in R14 knowing Kiron was there and held the Objective. A player in game chat even asks "So you guys play together?"
[game]6903798[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective after xiangwang/Kiron play out the last 3 turns consecutively (K/X/K)
[game]6852258[/game] - xiangwang holds the Objective. Nice tag team running throughout that game, i.e. target all others and not each other
[game]6844836[/game] - Kiron holds the Objective after xiangwang/Kiron play out the last 3 turns consecutively (K/X/K)

These guys stumbled upon the goose that lays the golden egg: Third Crusade and its Objective. The above games are solely Third Crusade - I haven't even ventured into their Waterloo history together where they would take bonuses and not break them as they switched between last turn & first turn each round - but what is noticeably apparent is the manner in which games are won at the end, and the sequence of turns that lead to those victories.

Who conducted the previous C&A on these guys, Stevie Wonder?

[jsnyder748]

Cof have you ever tried objective freestyle? you seem to have a bunch of time you would be good at it lol

[Chariot of Fire]

Up until a year ago I was happily plodding along on my PC from 1995. It and freestyle were not a happy marriage.

All in good time though. I'm still getting used to my new friend BOB right now.

[codeblue1018]

Up until a year ago I was happily plodding along on my PC from 1995. It and freestyle were not a happy marriage.

All in good time though. I'm still getting used to my new friend BOB right now.

What?!?! Bob?!?!? What have they done to you? Lol, kidding. Anyway, why isn't this thread merged into C/A. Totally blatant; nice research Si.

[Seulessliathan]

I think you know the answer Rodion.
Why don´t you try to help to make rules as good as possible to prevent any abuse? Or do you support such behaviour? Do you think they acted fair and correct?

[freakns]

Up until a year ago I was happily plodding along on my PC from 1995. It and freestyle were not a happy marriage.

All in good time though. I'm still getting used to my new friend BOB right now.

you are using BOB?! first you started using internet, now you are becoming fan of new stuff... you will burn in hell young Simon, devil of technology has taken your soul!

[Chariot of Fire]

Yeah! And I tried Chatglove the other day but I keep hitting the wrong keys

[freakns]

this is looking like TOFU high council... are you the middle finger?

[Chariot of Fire]

I think I'm the thumb - everyone's under it!

[betiko]

This is simple in my opinion.
If you like this friend so much play team games. Yes, people do get upset when friends continue to play in 8 player games with each other. Also, I notice you refer to each other by color as if you don't know each other. I understand wanting to play with people you know, but that can be done as team, 1v1 or a group of 8 that you know. This is unfair to the other players who thought this wasn't a team game.

This. There has always existed an intent to deceive. These guys are friends (house mates even). No-one else in the games they play probably ever knows that, so betiko's theory of the other players forming an alliance never materializes. They end and start each round in collusion, that's why they play freestyle. They should either play as a team (in team games!) or announce their (as of yet unspoken) alliance in chat from Round 1.

Anyone can top the leaderboard if they've a friend playing on the other team.

I didn't know that! I remember a c&a report about Kiron and a housemate didn't realize it was Xiang. One thing though; I still think you should never finish early turns in a freestyle obj game. I play a lot of those on das schloss and each time people play mind games with the clock. All of the people I play with a lot on these settings (jsnyder, boingboingdaniel); we all know each other s timezones and play bitch moves so that one has to wake up at 4am if he wants a chance to win ect. You don t let a player with unlimited time to take obj when he could.. But people in that game are not aware from the start that these 2 are friends so that is an issue...

[jsnyder748]

I didn't know that! I remember a c&a report about Kiron and a housemate didn't realize it was Xiang. One thing though; I still think you should never finish early turns in a freestyle obj game. I play a lot of those on das schloss and each time people play mind games with the clock. All of the people I play with a lot on these settings (jsnyder, boingboingdaniel); we all know each other s timezones and play bitch moves so that one has to wake up at 4am if he wants a chance to win ect. You don t let a player with unlimited time to take obj when he could.. But people in that game are not aware from the start that these 2 are friends so that is an issue...

I think Kiron and Xiangwang moved out or something. The multi kiron was caught with was a housemate. They are still friends of cource.

also it took me a long time realize little betiko was smart enough to play the waiting game

but that was when I didn't care about those games for anything but medals; not points so you won many of them haha.....won't happen again!

[betiko]

I didn't know that! I remember a c&a report about Kiron and a housemate didn't realize it was Xiang. One thing though; I still think you should never finish early turns in a freestyle obj game. I play a lot of those on das schloss and each time people play mind games with the clock. All of the people I play with a lot on these settings (jsnyder, boingboingdaniel); we all know each other s timezones and play bitch moves so that one has to wake up at 4am if he wants a chance to win ect. You don t let a player with unlimited time to take obj when he could.. But people in that game are not aware from the start that these 2 are friends so that is an issue...

I think Kiron and Xiangwang moved out or something. The multi kiron was caught with was a housemate. They are still friends of cource.

also it took me a long time realize little betiko was smart enough to play the waiting game

but that was when I didn't care about those games for anything but medals; not points so you won many of them haha.....won't happen again!

yeah yeah, you don't care about them just because I have 40-50% win rate in those games vs you haha. medal hunting on those too but you still need the win for the unque kills so mooot!!! :p

[Rodion]

I think you know the answer Rodion. Why don't you try to help to make rules as good as possible to prevent any abuse?

First step is getting people to reflect on the situation, which I'm trying to do. It would be extremely more productive if someone would just answer specifically the moment in which the rule is broken. We need to understand exactly where the problem lies so the discussion can progress. Should I ever want to play Third Crusade freestyle again, I want to know exactly how far I'm allowed to drive as far as diplomacy goes and, right now, the only thing I know is that deciding a game by making another without all living players is wrong.

Or do you support such behaviour? Do you think they acted fair and correct?

These are tougher questions. Is it "fair" that the game is won by the player who deserves it most? I see 6 players who simply could not be considered deserving because they made the crucial mistake of ending their turns too soon in a round 14 freestyle objective game (optimal play prescribes you wait 23 hours before pressing "begin"). From that perspective, it was fair, but I'm sure there are many other out there.

My opinion is that, if the terms of their deal/alliance are 100% disclosed over game chat, what they do should be allowed. I obviously don't know if they have a secret pact that they once discussed over MSN/Skype/telephone/real life conversation (if they do, then it's illegal and, as someone said, rules are broken before the game even starts).

[DoomYoshi]

I did answer, I guess my answer doesn't count?

Or do you mean somebody for voted for the first option?

[Rodion]

I meant somebody who thought a rule was broken.

[Seulessliathan]

I think you know the answer Rodion. Why don't you try to help to make rules as good as possible to prevent any abuse?

First step is getting people to reflect on the situation, which I'm trying to do. It would be extremely more productive if someone would just answer specifically the moment in which the rule is broken. We need to understand exactly where the problem lies so the discussion can progress. Should I ever want to play Third Crusade freestyle again, I want to know exactly how far I'm allowed to drive as far as diplomacy goes and, right now, the only thing I know is that deciding a game by making another without all living players is wrong.

Actually i did that, the reply was there for maybe half an hour, but then decided that i won´t argue with a lawyer in a language i don´t speak very well, so edited my post.
So, you don´t know the answer to your question when the rule was broken? I believe the answer is obvious, but if you don´t agree, then i won´t speak up here.

Or do you support such behaviour? Do you think they acted fair and correct?

These are tougher questions. Is it "fair" that the game is won by the player who deserves it most? I see 6 players who simply could not be considered deserving because they made the crucial mistake of ending their turns too soon in a round 14 freestyle objective game (optimal play prescribes you wait 23 hours before pressing "begin"). From that perspective, it was fair, but I'm sure there are many other out there.

My opinion is that, if the terms of their deal/alliance are 100% disclosed over game chat, what they do should be allowed. I obviously don't know if they have a secret pact that they once discussed over MSN/Skype/telephone/real life conversation (if they do, then it's illegal and, as someone said, rules are broken before the game even starts).

Don´t you think this has anything to do with game throwing? They got a warning in a C&A report where the accusation was game throwing.

[MoB Deadly]

I meant somebody who thought a rule was broken.

It's against the rules because he is conqueror, duh!

------------

Disclaimer:
I am not talking about the other games that Kiron played in order to achieve conqueror rank. I am referring to the game in the Original Post thats it. And please I do not want anyone to take offense to what I say, my opion may change after their are replies to my post, but these are my thoughts right now.

I think this tactic gives them an advantage against unsuspecting "new" players. And by new I mean players that dont play frequent games with that map/settings with that clique. In this case, the same 4-5 people play the same map and settings over and over again. As Kiron said, he was already a victim of this late game stalemate gamble. The first 5 people already have the experience with playing with each other and they know that if the game becomes out of reach for all of them, they can make this last ditch effort so that 1 of them is pretty much guaranteed a win.

They have an unfair advantage because if someone from the outside group joins the game, they actually have almost a 0% chance of winning the game. If they play poorly, they lose just as they normally would any other game. If they are playing very well, then all the other players quickly form an alliance to take them out and give the victory to the inside group. This person outside the group cannot react to it in time and/or stop all of them from aligning against them.

Therefore, even though it is an 8 player game, a victory is almost guaranteed for only a portion of the players because they know if things get bad, they can immediately form an alliance.

Just as they described it, would they rather have a 0% chance to win the game, or a ~30% chance to win the game? It is a no brainer you play to win the game and they will take that deal every time. The problem is, the new people are unaware this deal has been done before and cannot prepare against it.

It is a mixture of throwing games, and systematically farming.

Edit: Do I think they should be punished for this? I don't think so. But I think it should be noted that they have an unfair advantage by doing this and they should be given a warning against doing this type of thing unless all players in the game have equal knowledge.

[Mr Changsha]

I've considered the nature of the cooperation between kiron and xiangwang to be disgraceful for a long time and this latest example of their shocking disregard for fair play has done nothing to change my view.

[Rodion]

Actually i did that, the reply was there for maybe half an hour, but then decided that i won´t argue with a lawyer in a language i don´t speak very well, so edited my post.
So, you don´t know the answer to your question when the rule was broken? I believe the answer is obvious, but if you don´t agree, then i won´t speak up here.

No, I do not know the answer. Is it because they know each other in real life? Is it because this specific Kiron-Xiang deal involved making other games? Is it because, back to my example, green refused to backstab red and kept his end of the deal?

Don´t you think this has anything to do with game throwing? They got a warning in a C&A report where the accusation was game throwing.

Not in my opinion. The issue is whether you're willing to backstab in order to not lose a game OR keep your word and be seen as a trustworthy diplomatic player for the remainder of your CC life (that is, assuming you never break truces/deals).

Take this guy in this game for instance: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=10673863

2012-03-04 19:25:48 - Avi8or: what do you mean Yellow? I don't break a truce even if it means losing the game...my word is word.

Did he throw the game? Are we going to punish everyone that keeps a "my word before the game" approach?