Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote:

alstergren wrote:Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

I like this interpretation, and it seems to be accurate to me.

I agree. I knew when I saw the 1v1s a warning was coming, but I wanted to make sure that they were not taken out of context and god forbid some further discipline, if the act was misconstrued. They look worse than they are, and if a babysitter hadnt messed up, it never would have happened.

I think its obvious that one tie breaker really isnt what the rules are against, and if its done in one game, thats no real different than making a stupid move and ending it anyways. If many are set up, or obviously many 1v1's...the oportunity for abuse is too high, and it just cant be allowed.

As always, the mods will address each case individually, and motive and actions will be weighed, hopefully fairly.

Point dumping means dropping lots of games intentionally...it clearly does not mean one or two occasionally...or wed all be guilty...as I showed rather....dramatically in the other thread.

Im glad this ended up where I thought it would, and it seems as reasonable as it possibly can be.

"40 year old friendless, humorless virgin".

im 35

AAFitz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

alstergren wrote:Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

I like this interpretation, and it seems to be accurate to me.

I agree. I knew when I saw the 1v1s a warning was coming, but I wanted to make sure that they were not taken out of context and god forbid some further discipline, if the act was misconstrued. They look worse than they are, and if a babysitter hadnt messed up, it never would have happened.

I think its obvious that one tie breaker really isnt what the rules are against, and if its done in one game, thats no real different than making a stupid move and ending it anyways. If many are set up, or obviously many 1v1's...the oportunity for abuse is too high, and it just cant be allowed.

As always, the mods will address each case individually, and motive and actions will be weighed, hopefully fairly.

Point dumping means dropping lots of games intentionally...it clearly does not mean one or two occasionally...or wed all be guilty...as I showed rather....dramatically in the other thread.

Im glad this ended up where I thought it would, and it seems as reasonable as it possibly can be.

your whole theory is on the fact that games are draws/stalemates. Its not chess. Every game played on this site has a possible solution. It may not be what everyone likes, but every game can be played to the end without other games being created.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

alstergren wrote:Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

I like this interpretation, and it seems to be accurate to me.

I agree. I knew when I saw the 1v1s a warning was coming, but I wanted to make sure that they were not taken out of context and god forbid some further discipline, if the act was misconstrued. They look worse than they are, and if a babysitter hadnt messed up, it never would have happened.

I think its obvious that one tie breaker really isnt what the rules are against, and if its done in one game, thats no real different than making a stupid move and ending it anyways. If many are set up, or obviously many 1v1's...the oportunity for abuse is too high, and it just cant be allowed.

As always, the mods will address each case individually, and motive and actions will be weighed, hopefully fairly.

Point dumping means dropping lots of games intentionally...it clearly does not mean one or two occasionally...or wed all be guilty...as I showed rather....dramatically in the other thread.

Im glad this ended up where I thought it would, and it seems as reasonable as it possibly can be.

your whole theory is on the fact that games are draws/stalemates. Its not chess. Every game played on this site has a possible solution. It may not be what everyone likes, but every game can be played to the end without other games being created.

its not a theory, its just how it is. Secondly, they were warned about the 1v1s, which I admit was while innocent...probably a bad idea. As far as a decider game...its obvious that one is not cheating. Playing one game to decide who wins the other, is realistically no more throwing the game, than making a ridiculous move just to end the first anyways....its just semantics, and its obvious that it wont be regulated as long as it isnt taken too far.

alstergren wrote:Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.

I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.

Or is that reading too much into it?

This is pretty much spot on, I think.

Isolated stalemate games are find---it's a common sense approach. If everyone consents, and that game is actually a stalemate game and has been going on for quite some time, such things are fine.

However, if there is suspicious play---if the game really isn't that long and drawn out, or many multiple games occur, then those are things that move toward breaking the rules.


--Andy

There was no intent to cheat and the outcome in the end is fair to all involved.

amen to what RL just said.....as for alster's interpretation of achilles (that everyone has agreed with), there is a flaw in it:

"3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem."

this is not correct. the bargain was upheld. there was a hitch in it due to the account-sitter, but they resolved it. RL had agreed to throw karlo the proper amount of points that everyone had agreed to, so he did it.

i understand: the issue is that all those 1v1 games are supposed to be the problem. but i think i've already summed up the positions of comic, RL, karlo, and all those other big time esc players--

we can police ourselves. there's no need for the mods to get involved. this isn't some moral issue where you have to make sure everything we do is kosher. you seem to be taking yourselves a bit too seriously. it was handled according to the accepted practices of a wide range of players, then some snitch had to create a public issue out of it (eipi). don't worry about saving face or restraining some practice that you don't know much about, just let us continue with a system that has been functioning well for quite a long time.

thank you

Nephilim wrote:amen to what RL just said.....as for alster's interpretation of achilles (that everyone has agreed with), there is a flaw in it:

"3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem."

this is not correct. the bargain was upheld. there was a hitch in it due to the account-sitter, but they resolved it. RL had agreed to throw karlo the proper amount of points that everyone had agreed to, so he did it.

i understand: the issue is that all those 1v1 games are supposed to be the problem. but i think i've already summed up the positions of comic, RL, karlo, and all those other big time esc players--

we can police ourselves. there's no need for the mods to get involved. this isn't some moral issue where you have to make sure everything we do is kosher. you seem to be taking yourselves a bit too seriously. it was handled according to the accepted practices of a wide range of players, then some snitch had to create a public issue out of it (eipi). don't worry about saving face or restraining some practice that you don't know much about, just let us continue with a system that has been functioning well for quite a long time.

thank you

Hmm... just went back to this thread. Have been here 3+ years, think this is the first time most people have actually agreed to one of my rule interpretations. I'm actually a bit stunned.

Now. I have to disagree with you here. Yes, sure, the original bargain was not upheld. But it shouldn’t really matter whether it’s the account-holder or the account-sitter who breaks the bargain. The actions of the account-sitter are the actions of the account-holder (that’s the nature of account-sitting).

Sure, people can police themselves. But the rules are there for a good reason. So far I haven’t gotten any other impression than that CC is trying their best to put in place as straight-forward and clear-cut rules as possible. Just look at rule # 1 and # 2. Very clear-cut. Due to the growth of the site and peoples’ behaviour, the unwritten rules are needed. Here, I think people have to accept that CC cannot let people mend broken bargains in this manner since it would just be too messy to begin separating between these games and people just handing out points for other reasons. It’s just one of those instances where individual bargains have to defer to general rules to keep the game reasonably fair.