Diplomacy in tournament by organizer [Closed] Mas

[HaireWolf1]

Accused:

br4nd0n2002
kuma32478



The accused are suspected of:

Other: Tournament organizer broke a tournament rule in a game he is participating in by accepting an alliance from another player, basically guaranteeing they will advance.



Game number(s):

Game 9763146


Comments: In the game above the chat was as follows:

011-09-19 08:35:31 - br4nd0n2002: kuma if u put ur guys together we can share spot.
2011-09-19 09:44:48 - kuma32478: deal
2011-09-19 09:44:55 - kuma32478: let's share Andy's Mountain
2011-09-19 09:45:08 - kuma32478: we can run this thing to the next round

the next round that kuma is referring to is not the next round in the game but the fact that they can both advance to the next round of the tournament (since the top two advance) since they made the alliance. Kuma should not be able to host tournaments and the two players should be kicked out of this tournament as players.

[kuma32478]

Alliances are not illegal in tournaments. They are part of the game. Nothing prevents anyone in the tournament from using them to get to the finals. Groups are shuffled each round to prevent two people from riding all the way to the finals. Hope that helps.

I have no problem withdrawing the agreement and playing it out.

[Masli]

No site rules are broken. If you have a problem with a tourney or tourney-organiser, feel free to contact one of the Tournament Directors :
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=group&g=147640

[HaireWolf1]

Thanks...sent it to Night Strike to look into.

[Night Strike]

Some organizers will state that alliances of any kind are not allowed in their tournaments, but this organizer did not do so. That means that the site rules come into play, which state that any alliance can be made within a game as long as all diplomatic actions take place within the game chat and not in secret. Therefore, no tournament rules were broken by the alliance. If you did not like the alliance, please leave the proper ratings.


That all being said, I think it's unprofessional for an organizer to partake in an alliance in his own tournament simply because he wrote the rules and will know them much better than the other player. I've sent a PM expressing my disapproval to the organizer since he was also involved in the alliance, but no rules were broken.

[Masli]

thanks Night Strike !

[HaireWolf1]

Thanks for informing me that alliances in tournaments are AOK...I used it against kuma and he's eliminated now.

[drunkmonkey]

That all being said, I think it's unprofessional for an organizer to partake in an alliance in his own tournament simply because he wrote the rules and will know them much better than the other player. I've sent a PM expressing my disapproval to the organizer since he was also involved in the alliance, but no rules were broken.

Yeah, complicated rules like:

Winner and second place in each game move on

In my opinion, it's ridiculous that kuma received any sort of official reprimanding for this. It was just sour grapes from someone on the outside of a legal alliance.

[chapcrap]

That all being said, I think it's unprofessional for an organizer to partake in an alliance in his own tournament simply because he wrote the rules and will know them much better than the other player. I've sent a PM expressing my disapproval to the organizer since he was also involved in the alliance, but no rules were broken.

Yeah, complicated rules like:

Winner and second place in each game move on

In my opinion, it's ridiculous that kuma received any sort of official reprimanding for this. It was just sour grapes from someone on the outside of a legal alliance.

I agree to some extent, but when there are tournaments with special rules like this, the TO always benefits from the extra knowledge. That said, if you're in a tournament and don't know the rules, that's your fault. Especially when the Game Labels say that the top 2 advance, which was the caveat in Kuma's tournament.

[Night Strike]

There was no "official reprimand".

[drunkmonkey]

There was a PM from a Tournament Director expressing disapproval. Call it what you want, but it was a message from someone with a colorful name telling him he shouldn't do it again.

[kuma32478]

Thanks for the defense guys. It's been disappointing to see how HaireWolf1 handled himself

[Night Strike]

There was a PM from a Tournament Director expressing disapproval. Call it what you want, but it was a message from someone with a colorful name telling him he shouldn't do it again.

The disapproval was focused around the actions of being an organizer and a player and not just being a player.

[HighlanderAttack]

there is no room for alliances in tournaments at all

[drunkmonkey]

I participate in all of my tournaments, and I play to win. If the rules are clearly written, and I'm not breaking them, I don't see why the fact that I'm the organizer is relevant to how I play. If I'm wrong, and organizing a tournament means you have to play differently in it, this may be a discussion for the TO forum.

[jefjef]

In tourney player etiquette it states:

DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY ALLIANCES. Secret diplomacy is against Conquer Club rules anyway, but even public alliances are greatly frowned upon in tournament games. Most tournaments are set up to lead to one winner, and most players will get upset if their methodical lead suddenly becomes double-teamed.

I was of the belief, as many are, that alliances were not allowed in tourneys but this is not written as a specific rule. More of a suggestion. A guide.

Maybe there needs to be a more precise wording/rule in re of alliances. They are bs anyway. So maybe a rule forbidding alliances, if it isn't specifically allowed/stated in a particular tourney, would be the path to go.

[chapcrap]

In tourney player etiquette it states:

DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY ALLIANCES. Secret diplomacy is against Conquer Club rules anyway, but even public alliances are greatly frowned upon in tournament games. Most tournaments are set up to lead to one winner, and most players will get upset if their methodical lead suddenly becomes double-teamed.

I was of the belief, as many are, that alliances were not allowed in tourneys but this is not written as a specific rule. More of a suggestion. A guide.

Maybe there needs to be a more precise wording/rule in re of alliances. They are bs anyway. So maybe a rule forbidding alliances, if it isn't specifically allowed/stated in a particular tourney, would be the path to go.

I wasn't aware of this. Maybe I was at one point, but it was long forgotten.

I was just of the belief that tournament games were just like other games. Once someone has a lead, are you simply supposed to concede and not work together to even the game out? Alliances are part of the game in my opinion. Diplomacy is a huge part of it. Why should it be taken out of tournament?

[IcePack]

That doesn't necessarily work for things like those survivor tournaments.
One in particular (off the top of my head) team A and team B lose their "regular team games". Team C & D won and are safe.

Team A and team B meet in a ASSASIN game, and the player who loses is Ou of the tournament. In this situation in order to not have one of your own team dumped, clearly benefits from and used several agreements / alliances that wouldn't have fit a "regular" assassin game.

If you make it that cut and dry, you will limit (at least to some extent) some of the current make ups of tournaments. I've seen many agreements made, alliances, truces over the course of my tournament games.

While I see why it would be "frowned upon" in MOST cases, I would be against a complete hard line rule to eliminate any alliances or truces in tournament game play.

[jefjef]

That doesn't necessarily work for things like those survivor tournaments.
One in particular (off the top of my head) team A and team B lose their "regular team games". Team C & D won and are safe.

Team A and team B meet in a ASSASIN game, and the player who loses is Ou of the tournament. In this situation in order to not have one of your own team dumped, clearly benefits from and used several agreements / alliances that wouldn't have fit a "regular" assassin game.

If you make it that cut and dry, you will limit (at least to some extent) some of the current make ups of tournaments. I've seen many agreements made, alliances, truces over the course of my tournament games.

While I see why it would be "frowned upon" in MOST cases, I would be against a complete hard line rule to eliminate any alliances or truces in tournament game play.

Do players from KOA not read? I was just saying maybe make no alliances an actual tourney rule UNLESS the TO specifically allows and states it.